Karl Keating vs. Peter Ruckman

On YouTube today, I found this debate between well-known Catholic apologist Karl Keating, of Catholic Answers, and Peter Ruckman, of the Bible Baptist Bookstore.

Each segment is over two hours long. I'm only an hour into the first one right now. My first impression is that it's way too disorganized. The lack of direction is disappointing. I don't think that's fair to the listener, who deserves debaters who are prepared for and dedicated to a more specific topic. Nevertheless, they address interesting and poignant issues.

Peter Ruckman has a lot of charisma and is a more entertaining speaker, replete with zingers and cute digs. Karl Keating, not as polished or as good on his feet as his counterpart, is, in my opinion, much more reasonable and intellectually honest, able to address issues directly without cheap shots. He did a good job considering he's not the best public speaker, is on the defense, and is in the midst of a "hostile" audience. Give it a listen if you have the time and inclination. Note that the video is of poor quality.

I just can't believe Karl Keating never had any hair. This video is from the 1980s. It's like Doctor Emmit Brown of the Back to the Future movies -- there was never a time when he had hair.





PS: The book Karl Keating wrote is a masterpiece: Catholicism and Fundamentalism -- The Attack on "Romanism" by "Bible Christians." It was very helpful to me when I first began my journey toward the Catholic Church.

An Early Witness Puts 'Soul Sleep' to Rest

Just as Jehovah's Witnesses believe, I grew up believing that when a person dies, he or she remains in an unconscious state until the resurrection of the dead. I believed our souls could not survive the body. I believed this to be the biblical understanding, and that Christians believed this until pagan philosophy infiltrated the Church, certainly by A.D. 325 at the Nicene Council.

The orthodox Christian understanding (which I now hold) is that the soul indeed survives the body and awaits the resurrection, in which our souls are reunited with our resurrected, glorified bodies.

This morning, I was re-reading St. Clement's epistle to the Romans, and I came across a passage that struck a chord with me several years ago. Clement, who lived from A.D. 30–100, is likely the associate of the apostle Paul (see Philippians 4:3). He was the fourth bishop of Rome, following Peter, Linus, and Cletus.

His letter is quite early, dated at A.D. 97 at the latest—way before the "evil" influences of the emperor Constantine. The letter possibly could have been written while the apostle John was alive. Here is a passage I want to share with you:

But not to dwell upon ancient examples, let us come to the most recent spiritual heroes. Let us take the noble examples furnished in our own generation. Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects. Thus was he removed from the world, and went into the holy place, having proved himself a striking example of patience.

Clement describes the apostles as being in his "own generation," and upon their deaths, Peter and Paul (1) "departed to the place of glory" and (2) "went into the holy place." These would be strange descriptions if he believed in soul sleep. Neither did he act like he was introducing a new doctrine. He wasn't even attempting to explain the state of the soul at death. He merely wrote of martyrdom and spiritual heroes.

No longer must I contrive excuses for St. Paul, for example, when he speaks of being "absent from the body" and "at home with the Lord" (2 Corinthians 5:8). The natural meaning of his words are perfectly reasonable when I consider the beliefs of the early church—even those who personally knew the apostle. If this is the same Clement that is mentioned in Scripture, Paul called him a fellow laborer whose name was written in the book of life.

One thing that my Jehovah's Witness friends—and I myself, years ago—misunderstood is that Catholics do not believe that our reward is merely "when you die, you go to heaven." Instead, Catholics teach that our ultimate reward will involve the bodily resurrection, when our souls are reunited with our bodies.

The dispute boils down to whether the soul exists consciously during the interim. While that is the dispute, it was not a dispute during the time of the apostles and in the first generations of the Church. It was taken for granted.

Catholicism and the Search for Truth

I was told yesterday that I was "not a Catholic at heart." The reason? I believe in a "personal relationship" with Jesus.

The non-denominational Christian woman who told me this is baffled that I could turn to Catholicism. She passionately explained the importance of living righteously, of letting the blood of Jesus cover me, of putting all my trust in Him. Christianity is not about academic understanding, but about walking with the Lord.

I could not argue with her impassioned plea.

Over the last few weeks, I have been targeted by a Jehovah's Witness, who, last weekend, brought an ex-Catholic JW to help pry me from Rome's grip. She and her literature said we must search earnestly, humbly, and with a teachable spirit before Jehovah reveals to us "the Truth." There is only one Truth, one religion. Differing, competing religions cannot all be true. We must reject man-made traditions that would replace the Word of God.

I could not argue with her logic.

Yet, neither of these women will accept that their understanding of Catholicism is misguided, for Jesus is the Truth at the center of Catholicism. He is the only path to salvation. God alone is to be worshiped. Holy Scripture is practically the air we breathe at Mass.

Instead, these gentlepersons (whom I respect) insist on portraying a hackneyed caricature of Catholicism: Catholics worship idols. Catholics worship Mary and the Saints. Catholics can go sin as long as they go to Confession. Catholics ignore Jesus. Catholics don't believe in the Holy Spirit. Catholics believe they can earn their way to Heaven. Catholics aren't "born again." Catholics don't "go by the Bible." Catholics worship the Pope. Catholics think the Pope can do no wrong.

These characterizations can agitate me, yet I'm patient because I once believed the same things about Catholics. Perhaps my patience is sometimes misunderstood as "coming around" to anti-Catholic schools of thought. Instead, I see this patience as a virtue; there's no sense in constantly whacking non-Catholics over the head with Catholic insights in every discussion. (That's what this blog is for!)

I was drawn to Catholicism because I was open to "truth," because I wanted to reject man-made traditions that conflict with the Word of God, because I believed in Scripture, because I believed in a "personal relationship" with Jesus.

Had I not investigated authentic Catholic teaching with these principles in mind, I would have remained ignorant as a non-Catholic. Too many people automatically reject Catholicism because they think they understand it, but don't.

Don't believe disgruntled ex-Catholics, don't believe priests or bishops in schism with the Church, don't believe Jack Chick comic books, don't believe convincing Protestant pastors -- read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Read the Church Fathers. Talk to well-grounded members of the clergy. Listen to faithful Catholics. Go to primary sources of information.

If there's something that troubles you, don't assume Catholicism is automatically wrong. Ask for clarification. Debate Catholicism with an open mind. Seek answers. Feel free to walk away if you have searched for answers and are convinced they are wrong, but don't fall into the trap of misrepresenting the Church's teachings, and hating the Church based on misunderstandings.

Bishop Fulton Sheen's words are indeed true:

There are not over a hundred people in the U.S. that hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church—which is, of course, quite a different thing.

"Anything Goes" in the Marriage Bed?

It is said by a number of individual Christians that "the marriage bed is undefiled," and by that they mean "anything goes" in the bedroom as long as you're married.

This has been said to justify sodomy, artificial contraception, sadomasochism, wild role playing, and any number of perversions of the marital act.

The scripture these people reference is often misunderstood because of the awkward wording of the King James Version (according to today's English style):

Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge (Hebrews 13:4).

Read from a certain perspective, this can seem to say all things are acceptable in the marriage bed.

But read it again in another translation, such as the New American Standard Bible:

Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge.

Go back to the KJV's rendering, and you can understand it in a new light. It's contrasting a wholesome marriage and its undefiled bed with whoremongering and adultery. Bring those things into the bed, and that bed is now defiled.

This scripture has to do with marital chastity. It does not intend to say that all degenerate or selfish imaginations are okay as long as you're married.

Is God Bloodthirsty?

BobDobbs left a comment about my post, "Would You Wear an Electric Chair Necklace?"

This god despised you and all people so much that all he could do about it was torture his son and have him nailed to a cross. Sorry, he didn't actually kill the boy because legend has him coming back to life. But the Bible teaches that "it pleased God" to do this to his boy. Too bad there wasn't a volcano handy.

So your god commits heinous torture to satisfy his anger at you and you want to glorify it by wearing a cross?

Seek help. If I kill my son because my neighbor's dandelions are spreading onto my lawn I'm going to jail for a long, long time.

Why can't you people see the insanity of this bloodlust?

God is not insane or bloodthirsty. There are other, more sensible conclusions.

If God despises us, why would He sacrifice for us? Sacrifice is, by nature, an act of love. Otherwise the concept of sacrifice would make no sense. There is no other motivation. (Even sadism is a perverted form of self-love.)

Jesus' motivation, however, was the purest form of love. Despite the pain and a certain kind of natural fear, He willingly chose to give His life for us; He was not coerced by a sadistic "Father" God.

God did not inflict torture on His Son; rather, He allowed sinners to do this. That's what Scripture means by "it pleased God," which is not the most desirable translation for the Hebrew idiom. The RSV conveys it better with "Yet is was the will of the Lord to bruise him" (Isaiah 53:10).

You state that Jesus was not killed because "legend has him coming back to life." I don't understand your point, because this "legend" -- that is, a tremendous weight of oral and written tradition -- has Him both dying and being raised from the dead.

There's nothing heinous on God's part concerning His plan of salvation. Jesus chose to take the bullet for mankind's sins to demonstrate His love for us. He is determined to save all those who would be saved. His self-sacrifice shows the extent of His determination, for, as Scripture says, there is no love greater than this -- than to lay down one's life for his friends.

Wearing a cross or crucifix is a ready reminder of love, not a sick symbol of bloodlust.