Interpreting Scripture

Candy has put forth her principle for scripture interpretation:
The general principle adhered to throughout is that of literalizing instead of spiritualizing. Statements of fact and historical accounts are accepted as such. THE RULE OBSERVED IS: Take the Bible literally wherein it is at all possible; if symbolic, figurative or typical language is used, then look for the literal truth it intends to convey.

The Catholic Church places great importance on the literal sense of Scripture. Let us look to the Catholic Catechism:

115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."
117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God's plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ's victory and also of Christian Baptism.
2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written "for our instruction".
3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, "leading"). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.

While giving the literal sense the greatest importance, we would miss out on the "richness to the living reading of Scripture" if we limited ourselves to the literal meaning.

After giving us her principle, Candy then gives an example:
Some cults like to take John 2:5, which says - "His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it." and try to turn that literal sentence into figures. They'll say things such as "we are the servants, and Mary is telling this to us. We must always listen to Mary." Is this a correct interpretation? Certainly not, as there are no cue words, or anything in the context to suggest that anything other that a literal interpretation is warranted. Mary simply told the servants at the wedding feast in Cana to do what Jesus told them to. That's it.

Certainly, Catholics would agree that the clearest meaning is that Mary told the servant to listen to Jesus. However, that doesn't rule out additional meanings which can be drawn from the text by reading it in ways other than the literal. Surely, there is nothing objectionable in remembering that we should always do whatever Jesus tells us.

I doubt if Candy would take such a strict interpretation to other verses. Take, for example, Matthew 28:19, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

Jesus spoke to his disciples. There are no cue words, or anything in the context to suggest that anything other than a literal interpretation is warranted. Why should we conclude that if Jesus told his disciples to do something, that anyone other than his disciples should do it? Because it enriches our lives, and all of Christianity when we do so.

Scripture is not one-dimensional. Using Scripture as our cue to interpretation makes this clear. Jesus speaks in parables. Song of Songs is poetry. All Christians interpret it in such a way as to apply it to their own lives. Candy's principle is oversimplification.

Additional readings on Catholic Scriptural interpretation:

Catholic Principles for Interpreting Scripture from the St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology.
Jimmy Akin's The Limits of Scripture Interpretation
Biblical Exegesis from The Catholic Encyclopedia




Stumble It!

More info on Finnis Jennings Dake

More on Dake:
Finis Jennings Dake (1902-1987) - dispensational Pentecostal fundamentalist. A minister who rejected formal training and traditional theology for his own extremely literal interpretation of the Bible. Much of his labor in interpreting Scripture did not even involve reading the Bible, since, as he claimed, the Holy Spirit taught him hundreds of verses without his ever having to read or memorize them. He also credited the illumination of the Spirit for his special understanding of difficult texts. His Dake's Annotated Reference Bible is controversial for teaching the gap theory, adoptionism, racial segregation, and a view of the Trinity as three Jehovahs (three Gods), each with their own separate bodies, souls, and spirits







Stumble It!

Now I'm sort of wondering if Candy discovered this new way to keep us out of her site and decided to try it out with her latest anti-Catholic screed. Here's the latest:

This is Candy's latest:

I love the Dake Annotated Reference Bible. One of the reasons I love it, is because Mr. Dake followed the same principle I do, in studying the scriptures.

This speaks volumes! Candy loves EVERY ONE who follows the same principles, way of thinking, point of view, perspective that she does! Even to the point of keeping folks who disagree with her out.

Here is info on Mr. Dake:
Finis Jennings Dake

This site was interesting - The Dake's Bible. This comes from Protestant Apologetics No one can say this is associated with a pro-Catholic page!

But here's the interesting part:

The "Dake's Bible"

& Confused Charismatic Theology

by Joseph Chambers

Many years ago, I became leery of the Dake's Bible, but never really understood why. The only thing I could identify was that those who became strong in their study of Dake also became arrogant and unteachable.

Remind you of anyone?

That entire article is worth the read to learn about the heresies in the Dake Bible.

Here's another Protestant article written by a Baptist Minister not very flattering to Dake.

I found that Jimmy Swaggart really loved Finis Dake's work. That didn't keep the Dake heirs from suing Swaggart!

In June, the heirs of the Rev. Finis Jennings Dake sued the evangelist Jimmy Swaggart, accusing him of using Mr. Dake's words without permission or attribution

And this is a VERY interesting article about Dake's heresies:

The fact is clearly seen that Mr. Dake put much work into this reference tool. However, there are severe problems with the theology contained in this work. For instance, heresies abound concerning subjects such as the nature and attributes of God, Soteriology, and Christology—just to name a few. Furthermore, many word-faith teachers, such as Benny Hinn and Kenneth Copeland, have verifiably used Dake as a source of their quizzical doctrines. The scope of this paper, however, is not a complete, systematic analysis of the Dake Annotated Reference Bible, but an analysis of what it says about Jesus.

It must be stated that Finis Jennings Dake and those who follow his teaching are not yet considered a cult. However, much of the teaching in Dake's Bible is considered cultic because it falls far outside the walls of orthodox Christianity. To be sure, there are many heretical claims concerning Jesus found in this study Bible. And with about 30,000 Dake Bibles being sold each year, this is a subject that needs to be addressed. This exploration of Dake's teaching on Jesus will be subsumed under two broad topics: Dake and the Trinity, which will exegete Dake's teaching about the very nature of Jesus before He was Incarnated into a body of flesh, and Dake and the Incarnation, which will present Dake's teaching about the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity.

I can't find any information on line about Dake's education, other than he went to "bible college" and was a Pentacostal.

I think there are enough red flags here to make Dake's scholarship and exegesis with a gigantic grain of salt I do find this information quite helpful in understanding Mrs. Brauer's theology.














Stumble It!