Choosing to Pursue Truth; Received Tradition; Carnal Man & the Bible; Venial Sin; Newman No Innovator; Immaculate Conception; Mary’s In Partu Virginity; Catholic Prooftexts = Sola Scriptura?; Bible & Mary’s Perpetual Virginity

The late Steve Hays (1959-2020) was a Calvinist (and anti-Catholic) apologist, who was very active on his blog, called Triablogue (now continued by Jason Engwer). His 695-page self-published book, Catholicism — a collection of articles from his site — has graciously been made available for free. On 9 September 2006, Hays was quite — almost extraordinarily — charitable towards me. He wrote then:

I don’t think I’ve ever accused him of being a traitor or apostate or infidel. . . . I have nothing to say, one way or the other, regarding his state of grace. But his sincerity is unquestionable. I also don’t dislike him. . . . I don’t think there’s anything malicious about Armstrong—unlike some people who come to mind. In addition, I don’t think I’ve ever said he was unintelligent. For the record, it’s obvious that Armstrong has a quick, nimble mind. 

Two-and-a-half years later, starting in April 2009 and up through December 2011 (in the following quotations) his opinion radically changed, and he claimed that I have “an evil character,” am “actually evil,” “ego-maniac, narcissist,” “idolater,” “self-idolater,” “hack who pretends to be a professional apologist,” given to “chicanery,” one who doesn’t “do any real research,” “a stalwart enemy of the faith . . .  no better than [the atheists] Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens,” with an intent to “destroy faith in God’s word,” “schizophrenic,” “emotionally unhinged,” one who “doesn’t trust in the merit of Christ alone for salvation,” “has no peace of mind,” “a bipolar solipsist,” “split-personality,” and a “bad” man. He wasn’t one to mince words! See more gory details.

I feel no need whatsoever to reciprocate these silly and sinful insults. I just wanted the record to be known. I’ve always maintained that Hays was a very intelligent man, but habitually a sophist in methodology; sincere and well-meaning, but tragically and systematically wrong and misguided regarding Catholicism. That’s what I’m addressing, not the state of his heart and soul (let alone his eternal destiny). It’s a theological discussion. This is one of many planned critiques of his book (see my reasons why I decided to do this). Rather than list them all here, interested readers are directed to the “Steve Hays” section of my Anti-Catholicism web page, where they will all be listed. My Bible citations are from the RSV. Steve’s words will be in blue.

*****

[Chapter 9: Magisterium]

Two paradigms

Roman Catholicism privileges the outlook of select individuals, viz. popes, bishops in ecumenical councils, Latin Fathers, church Doctors. [p. 514]

The Bible privileges the outlook of select individuals, viz. patriarchs, prophets, bishops at the Jerusalem council, apostles, Bible writers, evangelists like Paul and Peter.

There’s a problem with positing inhuman standards of certainty. An artificial standard that humans can’t attain. Everyone loses out when you set the bar that high. [p. 514]

There’s no problem with positing divine and biblical standards of certainty: a blessing or gift that humans can’t attain without God’s grace. Everyone wins out when God sets the bar that high, so that human beings can know spiritual and theological truth.

In addition, each of us is ultimately at the mercy of divine providence for what we believe. [p. 514]

Joshua 24:15 And if you be unwilling to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell; but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.”

2 Timothy 4:3-4 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, [4] and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths.

It’s ultimately up to God whether your particular aptitude and experience guide you into truth. [p. 514]

Whether articles of faith must be certain depends on the kind of world we live in. Has God put us in a world where articles of faith must be certain? What if God put us in a world where articles of faith must only be likely? Can we know in advance of the fact which of those two worlds we inhabit? Isn’t that something we must discover? [p. 533]

1 Timothy 2:3-4 . . . God our Savior, [4] who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

In the text [2 Thes 2:15] you initially cited, Paul points to his own teaching, and not some free-floating paradosis [tradition]. [p. 516]

1 Corinthians 15:3-7 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, [4] that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, [5] and that he appeared to Cephas [Peter], then to the twelve. [6] Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. [7] Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.

Catholics will make certain theological and ethical mistakes which some Protestants will avoid because Protestants don’t stop with the received answers but scrutinize them. [p. 517]

2 Timothy 3:6-8 . . . burdened with sins and swayed by various impulses, [7] who will listen to anybody and can never arrive at a knowledge of the truth. [8] As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith;

Private interpretation

The Bible is propositional revelation. The meaning of Scripture can be understood by outright unbelievers. In that respect, understanding the Bible is no different than understanding a secular text. The role of the Holy Spirit is to engender receptivity to the message, not comprehension of the message. [p. 525]

1 Corinthians 1:18-21 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. [19] For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the cleverness of the clever I will thwart.” [20] Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? [21] For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.

1 Corinthians 2:11-14, 16 For what person knows a man’s thoughts except the spirit of the man which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. [12] Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God, that we might understand the gifts bestowed on us by God. [13] And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit. [14] The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. . . .  [16] “For who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.

Romans 1:18, 21-22 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth….[21] for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. [22] Claiming to be wise, they became fools, . . .

2 Peter 3:15-16 . . . So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, [16] speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.

Catholic fideism

From a Protestant perspective, not all theological errors are culpable errors, much less damnably culpable. [p. 534]

From a Catholic perspective, not all theological errors are culpable errors, much less damnably culpable. This is precisely the [biblical and common sense] distinction we make between venial and mortal sin.

There’s no reason to think God will punish Christians who make innocent mistakes. [p. 534]

We totally agree. So does St. Paul:

1 Timothy 1:12-13 he judged me faithful by appointing me to his service, [13] though I formerly blasphemed and persecuted and insulted him; but I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief,

John Henry Newman . . . invented the theory of development. [p. 534]

For the umpteenth time (repetition is a good teacher, except when lies like this are repeated), Cardinal Newman invented nothing. He developed one particularly fine-tuned and in-depth theory of development, completely from notions of development of doctrine that had been developing for over 1400 years: from St. Augustine and (especially) St. Vincent of Lerins, through Aquinas and others, to Mohler twenty years before Newman’s Essay came out in 1845.

Nowadays we see how the magisterium uses the theory of development to abrogate entrenched tradition and rationalize theological innovations. [p. 534]

That’s a lie, too. In fact,  the Catholic Church roundly condemned evolution of dogma, which is very different from development of doctrine. They’re not the same at all. Nothing has changed in that regard. Hays is over his head, and true to form, he ignorantly and rather stupidly and irresponsibly conflated the two concepts (one orthodox and espoused by the Catholic Church and the other heretical and condemned by her). In a past reply I documented how the pope most opposed to modernism, Pope St. Pius X, gave a ringing endorsement of the orthodoxy of St. Cardinal Newman’s thinking, including development. As John Adams said, “facts are stubborn things.”

[Chapter 10: Marian Dogmas]

Marian mythology

What would count as evidence for the Immaculate Conception? What kind of evidence would even be probative? In the nature of the case, there could be no physical evidence for the Immaculate Conception. [p. 536]

As in my many defenses of it: 1) the meaning of kecharitomene in Luke 1:28 (“full of grace”), 2) what it means to be full of grace, according to Paul (without sin), 3) the fittingness (yes, that is a biblical concept) of Mary being without sin, original and actual, as the Mother of God, 4) analogies to other holy figures made holy by God in the womb in accordance with their high calling, 5) the biblical and patristic typology of the New or Second Eve, who reversed the “no” of Eve with a “yes” to God, 6) #3 and #5 lead logically to a special miraculous act of grace by God at the very beginning of Mary’s existence; i.e., at her conception, 7) pondering why an angel would “hail” Mary, 8) the possibility and actuality of other sinless creatures in the Bible (analogy), 9) The NT analogy of Mary as the new ark of the covenant.

In what respect, if at all, would the Immaculate Conception even be detectable to Mary or her parents? [p. 536]

Primarily by special revelation, which is precisely what Mary received. God sent the angel Gabriel to her. Secondly, as she went through life, due to being preserved from original sin, Mary wouldn’t be burdened by the concupiscence (tendency or desire to sin) that the rest of us labor under, and she would come to be aware of that by talking to others who did have to deal with it. Her lack of actual sin would also set her apart from everyone around her except for Jesus.

Assuming (ex hypothesi) that Mary was sinless, what evidence could there be that she was sinless from the moment of her conception, rather than at some later stage in utero, or as a newborn baby, or one-year-old? In other words, if God intervened to exempt her from the stain of original sin, how would Mary or her parents know when that happened? Even in principle, how could there be any evidence for the timing of God’s intervention? [p. 536]

Good and interesting question. I’m just speculating (hopefully piously!), but I think that it would be an extrapolation from knowledge of Old Testament saints like Jeremiah being chosen and set aside from the womb and pondering that such a special grace may as well be from the very beginning of her preborn life or conception, according to what was known (biologically) of such things in those days. They knew that a person began in the womb (as a result of intercourse), formed by God because that is biblical (in the Psalms and elsewhere). They didn’t know that it was so early that it had no detectable signs. They didn’t know about DNA, etc.

In other words, Mary would have had to think about it and speculate, just as Duns Scotus later did. Whether she actually worked all that out, we simply don’t know. But in any event, she didn’t have to for it to be true. It’s interesting to think about, but has absolutely no bearing on whether the doctrine is true or not. If I don’t know how my stomach and intestines and colon and kidneys and liver digest and filter food, it doesn’t follow that they aren’t doing so in my body. They are what they are and they do what they do, regardless of my state of knowledge about their workings.

For that matter, surely the church fathers had a different understanding of conception and the moment of conception, than we do, thanks to modern gynecology and related disciplines. [p. 536]

Yes they did, because of the primitive state of biology and reproductive biology. So for centuries they held to Mary being actually sinless, but not freed from original sin. Some may perhaps have thought (I don’t recall examples) that her sanctification began in the womb, analogous to Jeremiah, John the Baptist, etc. Freedom from actual sin is the kernel of the more developed doctrine of freedom from original sin (taking it back to her conception rather than her birth), which was first probably fully understood by Blessed Duns Scotus (c. 1265-1308).

Since Hays had no understanding of development of doctrine at all, and rejected it in his ignorance, all of this would be gibberish to him. He thought that every doctrine emerged from the pages of the Bible whole and entire, and incapable of any further development. Hence he stated that Chalcedonian Christology was lower than that of the Bible.

So what does the traditional dogma even mean? [p. 536]

It means that the kernel (actual sinlessness based on fittingness as the Mother of God) was there from the beginning: indeed in Luke 1:28 and that it was developed over many centuries as the Immaculate Conception, to be declared as a dogma at the highest level in 1854. Catholics actually believe that pious Christians can ponder spiritual things, even for many centuries, and come to deeper understandings of them, with the help of the Holy Spirit.

Is it not far more likely that this belief evolved through multiple stages of theological speculation? [p. 536]

Yes, it went through a long process, but it consistently developed rather than evolved (like a dinosaur to a mammal or suchlike) into something totally other than what it was from the beginning.

Consider the virginity in partu. What would even count as evidence for that claim? Would there be physical evidence? [p. 536]

Obviously the evidence was an intact hymen after the birth of Jesus, which is what the ancients meant by “virginity “during” birth, and traditionally the physical meaning of virginity, as opposed to the lack of engagement in sexual intercourse, as today. And the Blessed Virgin Mary would know this and know what she went through (or didn’t go through) during the miraculous birth and could tell Luke this information. It’s not difficult to figure these things out (whether one believes them or not). This is the evidence, and in this case it’s empirical / physical.

Notice two clashing Catholic paradigms. On the one hand is the old, pre-Newmanesque, Counter-Reformation (a la Bellarmine) paradigm, where you attempt to prooftext Catholic dogma from Scripture. [p. 537]

Funny, I’ve been doing that for 32 years. It’s what I am probably most known for in my apologetics.

Yet so many Catholics fight tooth-n-nail for these traditional prooftexts, as if they really believe in sola scripture [sic], which makes them cling for dear life some Biblical warrant for each and every Catholic dogma. [p. 537]

Sola Scriptura is the belief that Scripture is the final authority and standard and only infallible one for doctrine and theology. It’s the Protestant rule of faith. Catholics producing biblical proof for Catholic doctrines is simply systematic theology: done by all sorts of Christians. It’s apples and oranges, or more like apples and squash. The two have nothing to do with each other. So why did Hays make this silly comparison?

The schizophrenia is something to behold. Perhaps psychotropic medication will relieve the unbearable tension. [p. 537]

Since Hays’ equation doesn’t fly in the first place, the melodramatic and sophistical potshot based on the wrongly imagined contradiction flowing from the non-comparison simply makes Hays look ridiculous. It’s a familiar trait. Some old saying about “don’t spit in the wind . . . ” comes to mind.

Notice that defending Catholicism is just as complicated as defending Protestantism. [p. 537]

Yeah? Having defended both, I find Catholicism much easier to defend, because there are a great many more applicable biblical evidences to bring to bear. Catholicism takes all of the Bible into account. Protestantism (i.e., in its many guises) tends to greatly emphasize merely a few prooftexts that are employed over and over, while many other relevant passages are ignored.

Is the PVM a big deal?

The onus is not on Protestants to provide evidence to the contrary, but on Catholics to provide sufficient evidence. It’s not incumbent on me to disprove something for which there’s no good evidence. If you tell me there’s a genie in the bottle, the burden of proof is not on me to prove you wrong. [p. 540]

Plenty of biblical evidence exists for the perpetual virginity of Mary. I recently wrote a succinct nine-point summary of it (I won’t bother indenting so much material):

1) In comparing Matthew 27:56, Mark 15:40, and John 19:25, we find that James and Joseph (mentioned in Matthew 13:55 with Simon and Jude as Jesus’ “brothers”) are the sons of Mary, wife of Clopas. This other Mary (Mt 27:61; 28:1) is called the Blessed Virgin Mary’s adelphe in John 19:25. Assuming that there are not two women named “Mary” in one family, this usage apparently means “cousin” or more distant relative. Matthew 13:55-56 and Mark 6:3 mention Simon, Jude and “sisters” along with James and Joseph, calling all adelphoi. The most plausible interpretation of all this related data is a use of adelphos as “cousins” (or possibly, step-brothers) rather than “siblings.” We know for sure, from the above information, that James and Joseph were not Jesus’ siblings. . . .

2) Jude is called the Lord’s “brother” in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3. If this is the same Jude who wrote the epistle bearing that name (as many think), he calls himself “a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James” (Jude 1:1). Now, suppose for a moment that he was Jesus’ blood brother. In that case, he refrains from referring to himself as the Lord’s own sibling (while we are told that such a phraseology occurs several times in the New Testament, referring to a sibling relationship) and chooses instead to identify himself as James‘ brother.  This is far too strange and implausible to believe. Moreover, James also refrains from calling himself Jesus’ brother, in his epistle (James 1:1: “servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ”): even though St. Paul calls him “the Lord’s brother” (Gal 1:19).

3) Commenter Alex Lielbardis brought up this further argument:

Mark 6:4 And Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor, except in his own country, and among his own kin [(συγγενής, ές / suggenes)], and in his own house.” (cf. Jn 7:5: “For even his brothers did not believe in him.”)

He added:

The plural Greek word used refers to kinsfolk, relatives, or fellow countrymen. This same word is used by Luke in his account of the Annunciation which in the singular form specifically means a cousin: “And behold, your kinswoman [συγγενίς / syngenis] Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son; and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren” (Luke 1:36). Thus, Jesus apparently replies with his cousins (relatives or kin) in mind, in response to what was said by those who were offended at him.

The context of this incident was His preaching in His hometown of Nazareth. Both Mark (6:3) and the parallel text in Matthew (13:55-56), in the immediate context mention four “brothers” of Jesus” and also, unnamed “sisters.” Jesus was catching flak from these relatives in His hometown. Both Matthew and Mark record Jesus as saying in response that a “prophet” is not honored “in his own house.”

4) Luke 2:41-51 describes Mary and Joseph taking Jesus to the temple at the age of twelve, for the required observance of Passover. Everyone agrees that He was the first child of Mary, so if there were up to five or more siblings, as some maintain (or even one), why is there no hint of them at all in this account? I recently wrote in-depth about this. If Jesus had brothers or sisters and He was the oldest, then He certainly would have had siblings at 12 years old, when His parents took Him to Jerusalem for the Passover (Luke 2:41-50) — particularly since Mary was estimated to have been around 16 at His birth, which would make her still only around 28 at this time. We’re to believe that it makes sense that she bore her first child at 16 and then had no more from 16-28, and then more than four after that? That’s not very plausible at all.

5) The Blessed Virgin Mary is committed to the care of the Apostle John by Jesus from the Cross (John 19:26-27). Jesus certainly wouldn’t have done this if He had brothers (all of whom would have been younger than He was).

6) Nowhere does the New Testament state that any of Jesus’ “brothers” (adelphoi) are the children of Jesus’ mother Mary, even when they are referenced together (cf. Mark 3:31 ff.; 6:3 ff.; John 2:12; Acts 1:14). So for example, in Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55. Jesus is called “the son of Mary” and “the carpenter’s son” and only He is referred to in this way. The others (four “brothers” named in each passage) are not. It happens again in the book of Acts:

Acts 1:14  All these with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers

See how a distinction is made between Mary as the mother of Jesus and “his brothers,” who are not called Mary’s sons? Nor is she called their mother. These verses do not read in a “siblings” way. Svendsen writes: “We further read that Jesus has ‘brothers’ and ‘sisters’ (in texts that place them with his ‘mother’), from which we infer that these are biological siblings” (p. 58), but he doesn’t delve deep enough into the texts, to notice the important distinctions made, as I have above. It looks like he simply sees only what he wants to see.

7) In the New Testament, none of these “brothers” are ever called Joseph’s children, anywhere, either.

8) Much has been written about the use of adelphos in the NT. Its range of use is almost precisely like how it is used in the works of the first century Jewish historian Josephus (as we would expect, since he was a fellow Israelite and lived in the same period). In Antiquities, Book XVIII, ch. 4, sec. 6, Josephus refers to “Philip, Herod’s brother” (likely using adelphos there). In Wars of the Jews, Book II, ch. 6, sec. 1, he refers to “Archelaus’s brother Philip.” But we know that they were not siblings (sons of the same mother and father). In Wars of the Jews, Book II, ch. 7, sec. 4, Josephus mentions “Alexander, who was the brother of Archelaus, . . . This Alexander was the son of Herod the king . . .” Again, he likely uses adelphos, but is not referring to literal siblings, since we know that this Alexander’s mother was Mariamne. Wikipedia (“Philip the Tetrarch”) informs us that Philip was “son of Herod the Great and his fifth wife, Cleopatra of Jerusalem, . . . half-brother of Herod Antipas and Herod Archelaus.” The mother of the latter two men was Malthace.

Now I shall compare Josephus’ use of terms for relatives (excluding the straightforward terms mother, father, son, daughter), over against that of the NT.  Adelphos appears in the NT 346 times and syngeneís [“cousin”] only appears twelve times. Anepsios [“cousin”] appears once (Col 4:10). Here is the breakdown of NT terms for relatives (in the RSV):

brethren 191
brother(s) 159
sister 24
mother-in-law 5
daughter-in-law 3
father-in-law 1
cousin 1
uncle / aunt / nephew / niece 0
son-in-law 0
kin 1

Out of these 385 instances, 374 of them (or 97%) are either brother, brethren, or sister. The one appearance of cousin is 0.26% of the whole. Likewise, in Josephus (Antiquities and Wars of the Jews), out of 1024 terms for relative, 867 (85%) are brother, brethren, or sister. The thirteen appearances of cousin are 1.3% of the whole: remarkably similar usage to the NT, which also uses adelphos for non-siblings.

9) The same strikingly similar usage is found in the Septuagint (LXX): the Greek translation of the Old Testament. Adelphos appears 649 times (99%), syngeneís only appears five times (0.76%), and anepsios appears once (0.15%).

See my related paper, Josephus & “Brothers of Jesus” Redux (vs. Lucas Banzoli) [2-18-23], and many other treatments of the general topic on my Blessed Virgin Mary web page.

Did Hays (at least in this immediate section) deal with any of this considerable amount of biblical argumentation? No, he didn’t (what an incredible surprise). He may not have even been aware of any or most of it.

I will not give the dignity of a reply to blasphemous comments about Mary that Hays made on pages 540 and 541.

***

***

Photo credit: The Whore of Babylon (workshop of Lucas Cranach): colorized illustration from Martin Luther’s 1534 translation of the Bible [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: The late Steve Hays was a Calvinist and anti-Catholic writer and apologist. This is one of my many critiques of Hays’ “Catholicism”: a 695-page self-published volume.

“Faith in Rome”; “Robber Council” (449); Bishops; “Intimidation Tactics”; 1 Tim 3:15; Catholicism & Non-Believers; Augustine & Aquinas & Evolution; Precursors to Newman’s Development; Fathers & Capital Punishment; Pope Clement of Rome

The late Steve Hays (1959-2020) was a Calvinist (and anti-Catholic) apologist, who was very active on his blog, called Triablogue (now continued by Jason Engwer). His 695-page self-published book, Catholicism — a collection of articles from his site — has graciously been made available for free. On 9 September 2006, Hays was quite — almost extraordinarily — charitable towards me. He wrote then:

I don’t think I’ve ever accused him of being a traitor or apostate or infidel. . . . I have nothing to say, one way or the other, regarding his state of grace. But his sincerity is unquestionable. I also don’t dislike him. . . . I don’t think there’s anything malicious about Armstrong—unlike some people who come to mind. In addition, I don’t think I’ve ever said he was unintelligent. For the record, it’s obvious that Armstrong has a quick, nimble mind. 

Two-and-a-half years later, starting in April 2009 and up through December 2011 (in the following quotations) his opinion radically changed, and he claimed that I have “an evil character,” am “actually evil,” “ego-maniac, narcissist,” “idolater,” “self-idolater,” “hack who pretends to be a professional apologist,” given to “chicanery,” one who doesn’t “do any real research,” “a stalwart enemy of the faith . . .  no better than [the atheists] Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens,” with an intent to “destroy faith in God’s word,” “schizophrenic,” “emotionally unhinged,” one who “doesn’t trust in the merit of Christ alone for salvation,” “has no peace of mind,” “a bipolar solipsist,” “split-personality,” and a “bad” man. He wasn’t one to mince words! See more gory details.

I feel no need whatsoever to reciprocate these silly and sinful insults. I just wanted the record to be known. I’ve always maintained that Hays was a very intelligent man, but habitually a sophist in methodology; sincere and well-meaning, but tragically and systematically wrong and misguided regarding Catholicism. That’s what I’m addressing, not the state of his heart and soul (let alone his eternal destiny). It’s a theological discussion. This is one of many planned critiques of his book (see my reasons why I decided to do this). Rather than list them all here, interested readers are directed to the “Steve Hays” section of my Anti-Catholicism web page, where they will all be listed. My Bible citations are from the RSV. Steve’s words will be in blue.

*****

[Chapter 9: Magisterium]

How ecumenical are “ecumenical councils”?

So what’s the basis for your confidence in the authority of Rome? [p. 496]

The Bible; Church history; the non-contradictoriness and utter uniqueness of Catholic history and claims.

Is it just an act of blind faith? A leap into the dark? [p. 496]

No. See my previous answer.

Is your faith in the Roman church independent of how you interpret the documentary evidence? [p. 496]

Ultimately yes, because faith and reason distinct things; though harmonious.

Put another way, is your faith in Rome conditional or unconditional? [p. 496]

I would say unconditional (based on the massive evidence already seen), short of a massive and compelling disproof. Paul rhetorically alluded to a hypothetical disproof of Christianity:

1 Corinthians 15:16-20 . . . if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised. [17] If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. [18] Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. [19] If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all men most to be pitied. [20] But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, . . .

There might conceivably be some similar compelling disproof of Catholicism, in which case I would seriously reconsider my allegiance (just as I was willing to move from evangelicalism to Catholicism, and before that, from virtual paganism and practical atheism to evangelicalism. It’s the duty of both honesty and being open-minded. That said, I have not come within a billion miles of any such thing in my 32+ years as a Catholic.

You say your study “increases your confidence” in Rome. [p. 496]

That’s been my constant experience for 32 years. Every book and article I write increases my confidence; particularly when I observe how weak and insufficient the opposing argument are (like Steve’s book!).

Does that mean you began by entrusting himself to the church of Rome apart from study? [p. 496]

I certainly didn’t. I devoted an entire year (1990) to intense comparative study of evangelicalism and Catholicism. Then I followed the path that I sincerely believed to be the fullness of Christian truth.

Do you think the authority of the Roman church provides a level of certainty lacking in your private judgment? [p. 496]

Of course. That’s where faith comes in, and God must provide the grace for that. Religion and spirituality and theology are not philosophy (though certain forms of the latter are harmonious with them). Hays, in his hyper-rationalism, often acted as if they were equivalent, as if faith had little to do with it (quite odd for an adherent of “faith alone” isn’t it?). And this present line of socratic (but sophistical) reasoning is an example of his constant erroneous thinking and methodology. That’s why I’m replying to it, to expose its intellectual and spiritual bankruptcy.

But isn’t your identification of Rome as the one true church based on your study? [p. 496]

Initially yes, but not wholly. Reason is consulted and then the thinker determines whether the claims of the Catholic Church are consistent with it, and worthy to be adhered to with faith, led by God’s grace (discernment, the guidance of the Holy Spirit, prayer, and so forth). All Christians must seek to harmonize and understand the relationship of faith and reason. But doing that doesn’t wipe out faith. It’s always central to the religious quest.

When you treat your personal study as uncertain, how can you then pretend that Rome affords certainty? [p. 496]

It’s not pretense; it’s a rational faith based on reason, by the best determination we can make, using the lights that God gives us. One decides what is worthy to be an object of faith. It can’t be contrary to reason, because that would make it untrue before faith even comes into the picture. Catholics have faith enough to believe that God is able to preserve an infallible Church as well as an infallible Bible. Protestants (here’s the sad thing) lack that level of faith. They think, seemingly, that God is either unwilling or unable to provide the desperately needed certainty that a strong teaching Church provides; that God supposedly wants Christians to be flailing around in the dark and believing contradictory things, where one or both parties must be wrong. He hasn’t revealed Himself to be that way, in His revelation, the Bible, which we all revere.

How can the conclusion be more certain than the source of the conclusion? . . . The conclusion can’t rise higher than the process
of reasoning that underwrites the conclusion. [p. 496]

It can because it’s faith: a supernatural thing enabled by God’s grace. Faith always involves a “leap” that goes beyond reason, just as Jesus told Doubting Thomas after He appeared, in His mercy, because of his weakness of faith: “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe” (Jn 20:29). All of this can, of course, be turned around. How is the Protestant absolutely assured that he was justified and saved once and for all at one moment in time? It involves faith, of course; all the same questions could be asked right back. Even John Calvin conceded that such faith was, in the final analysis, subjective, and that one couldn’t be absolutely certain that they were among the elect, or whether anyone else was. Calvin wrote:

The election of God is hidden and secret in itself . . . men are being fantastic or fanatical if they look for their salvation or for the salvation of others in the labyrinth of predestination . . . (Commentary on John 6:40; in Francis Wendel, Calvin: Origins and Development of His Religious Thought, translated by Philip Mairet, New York: Harper & Row, 1963, 270)

[W]e are not bidden to distinguish between reprobate and elect – that is for God alone, not for us, to do . . . (Institutes of the Christian Religion, IV. 1. 3.)

What are his criteria for distinguishing an ecumenical council from a local council or robber council? There are no unanimous criteria. [p. 497]

It has to have representatives from far and wide, it must be presided over by a pope or his legate(s), and it must be orthodox, in terms of what had always been passed down by the apostles in the deposit of faith. Hays mentions the “robber council.” This occurred in Ephesus in 449, and attempted to establish the heresy of Monophysitism (Christ has one nature) as orthodox. Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox alike all reject Monophysitism as Christological heresy; so clearly this pseudo-council that promulgated it was neither ecumenical nor orthodox, by all subsequent mainstream theological standards. St. John Henry Cardinal Newman wrote about this infamous council:

Writing to St. [Pope] Damasus, he says,

*

Since the East tears into pieces the Lord’s coat . . . therefore by me is the chair of Peter to be consulted, and that faith which is praised by the Apostle’s mouth . . . From the Priest I ask the salvation of the victim, from the Shepherd the protection of the sheep . . . I court not the Roman height: I speak with the successor of the Fisherman and the disciple of the Cross. I, who follow none as my chief but Christ, am associated in communion with thy blessedness, that is, with the See of Peter. On that rock the Church is built, I know. [Epistle 15] . . .

*

Eutyches [a Monophysite] was supported by the Imperial Court, and by Dioscorus the Patriarch of Alexandria . . . A general Council was summoned for the ensuing summer at Ephesus [in 449] . . . It was attended by sixty metropolitans, ten from each of the great divisions of the East; the whole number of bishops assembled amounted to one hundred and thirty-five . . . St. Leo [the Great, Pope], dissatisfied with the measure altogether, nevertheless sent his legates, but with the object . . . of ‘condemning the heresy, and reinstating Eutyches if he retracted’ . . .
*

The proceedings which followed were of so violent a character, that the Council has gone down to posterity under the name of the Latrocinium or ‘Gang of Robbers.’ Eutyches was honourably acquitted, and his doctrine received . . . which seems to have been the spontaneous act of the assembled Fathers. The proceedings ended by Dioscorus excommunicating the Pope, and the Emperor issuing an edict in approval of the decision of the Council . . .

*
The Council seems to have been unanimous, with the exception of the Pope’s legates, in the restoration of Eutyches; a more complete decision can hardly be imagined. . . .

*
[W]hen we look through the names subscribed to the Synodal decision, we find that the misbelief, or misapprehension, or weakness, to which this great offence must be attributed, was no local phenomenon, but the unanimous sin of Bishops in every patriarchate and of every school of the East. Three out of the four patriarchs were in favour of the heresiarch, the fourth being on his trial. Of these Domnus of Antioch and Juvenal of Jerusalem acquitted him, on the ground of his confessing the faith of Nicaea and Ephesus . . . Dioscorus . . . was on this occasion supported by those Churches which had so nobly stood by their patriarch Athanasius in the great Arian conflict. These three Patriarchs were supported by the Exarchs of Ephesus and Caesarea in Cappadocia; and both of these as well as Domnus and Juvenal, were supported in turn by their subordinate Metropolitans. Even the Sees under the influence of Constantinople, which was the remaining sixth division of the East, took part with Eutyches . . .

I’m not answerable to Catholic bishops. That’s not the divine standard of judgment. I’m answerable to God via biblical revelation. [p. 498]

That revelation takes for granted that there is such a thing as a bishop, and that he has authority. In fact, Protestants often make anti-Peter arguments about the council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) by arguing that James, bishop of Jerusalem, presided. That’s episcopal authority. If he did preside (or if Peter did) — either way — an authoritative, infallible decree, guided by the Holy Spirit (as the text says) was made, that bound Christians in Asia Minor, many hundreds of miles away, since we know that Paul declared the council’s decision for observance (Acts 16:4).

So bishops are undeniably biblical. Paul casually mentions “the office of bishop” (1 Tim 3:1; cf. 3:2; Phil 1:1; Titus 1:7). Now, of course, one may wish to argue that Catholic bishops aren’t legitimately so, but then there must be plausible alternatives and solid arguments ruling out the Catholic bishops. Hays — the typical “lone ranger”-type low church Protestant –, had no bishop himself; and so he was plainly being unbiblical. That being the case, he had to play games and rationalize his unbiblical stance, by trying to wrongly pit the Bible against the episcopacy by saying “I’m answerable to God”: as if he was answerable to no man. But this is radically unbiblical and ahistorical as well. It’s completely arbitrary and unworthy of theological allegiance, since it is unattached from biblical teaching.

When people can’t win the argument through rational persuasion, they resort to intimidation tactics. [p. 499]

Yes; I’m well familiar with that from my personal experience with Hays himself (see what he said about me, trying to — unsuccessfully – shut me up and persuade everyone to think I was an unhinged and “evil” raving lunatic, in the introduction above). Then shortly after that, I was banned from his blog, Triablogue, as I have been ever since (2010 or so). Does that suggest that Hays or his followers over there are confident that they can “win the argument through rational persuasion” with me? But here I am, in my 25th critique of his book and many more to go. He almost certainly wouldn’t have replied to me if he were alive (judging by his almost universal behavior), and his followers like Jason Engwer and James Swan won’t do so now. None of this is mentioned in their impenetrable “bubble” over there. If a good friend of mine had died, and someone of a different theological persuasion was offering 25+ critiques of his book, I would be right there defending him. I would even welcome the opportunity.

Conversely, Protestants like me consider the input of many other Christians when we read commentaries, theologians, &c. [p. 499]

Right. Well, he wasn’t considering Catholic Christians, since he is on record regarding Catholicism as a “counterfeit religion” and “parody of the Christian faith” (p. 19; cf. pp. 20; 188-189).

Quest for the pot of gold at the end of the Roman rainbow

I’d say Nicene Christology is actually lower than NT Christology. We could get into that, if you wish. [p. 502]

I would love to! What a conversation that would be (development being my favorite theological topic)! This shows how radically ahistorical Hays was. He seems to have hardly ever met a consistent doctrinal development that he liked. But the man has passed on and it would have been exceedingly unlikely that he would ever have been willing to have such a discussion with me, anyway, since I was of an “evil character,” etc., in his opinion. That sort of ruins dialogue from the outset.

How is that worse than one man (the pope) determining the canon of Scripture for everyone, if that one man is actually fallible? [p. 502]

Technically, it wasn’t Pope Innocent I who did so on his own. He merely recognized the achieved consensus. It was two local councils that determined it: in Carthage and Hippo in the late 5th century, and they were dominated by St. Augustine’s thinking. So, if anyone, Augustine was the key figure; and Protestants love him. Protestants, in effect, regard St. Jerome as de facto infallible concerning the canon, since he disliked the deuterocanon; and they do the same with Athanasius, who first named all 27 NT books in AD 367. So we can be spared the bellyaching about Pope Innocent I, as if he came up with the canon down from heaven and out of the blue, like Mormon founder Joseph Smith and his silly plates, supposedly found on a New York hill.

1 Tim 3:15 . . . doesn’t say anything about the church’s authority or prerogatives. You imported those categories into your prooftext. [p. 502]

Really? I already refuted Hays on that score: 1 Timothy 3:15 = Church Infallibility [5-14-20].

But, of course, Paul didn’t say anything about the pope or papacy or a episcopal council in 1 Tim 3:15. [p. 503]

There was no intrinsic necessity for him to do so (not everything can or should always be mentioned in any given passage of Scripture; DUH!), but if we’re gonna play that game, he also didn’t say a word about Scripture, either, in a passage in which he refers to something (guess what?!) being “the pillar and bulwark of the truth.”

Moreover, Paul doesn’t say the church is the source of truth. And he doesn’t say the church has the authority or prerogative to determine the truth. Rather, the church is tasked with the responsibility of upholding the truth. [p. 503]

That’s right. But it doesn’t get Hays off the hook. He didn’t ponder the passages deeply enough. One can’t uphold the truth with untruth. As I wrote in my book about sola Scriptura:

Pillars and foundations support things and prevent them from collapsing. To be a “bulwark” of the truth, means to be a “safety net” against truth turning into falsity. If the Church could err, it could not be what Scripture says it is. God’s truth would be the house built on a foundation of sand in Jesus’ parable. For this passage of Scripture to be true, the Church could not err — it must be infallible. . . .

Jesus is without fault or untruth, and he is the cornerstone of the Church. The Church is also more than once even identified with Jesus himself, by being called his “Body” (Acts 9:5 cf. with 22:4 and 26:11; 1 Cor 12:27; Eph 1:22-23; 4:12; 5:23, 30; Col 1:24). That the Church is so intimately connected with Jesus, who is infallible, is itself a strong argument that the Church is also infallible and without error. . . .

Knowing what truth is, how can its own foundation or pillar be something less than total truth (since truth itself contains no falsehoods, untruths, lies, or errors)? It cannot. It is impossible. It is a straightforward matter of logic and plain observation. A stream cannot rise above its source. What is built upon a foundation cannot be greater than the foundation. If it were, the whole structure would collapse.

If an elephant stood on the shoulders of a man as its foundation, that foundation would collapse. The base of a skyscraper has to hold the weight above it. The foundations of a suspension bridge over a river have to be strong enough to support that bridge.

Therefore, we must conclude that if the Church is the foundation of truth, the Church must be infallible, since truth is infallible, and the foundation cannot be lesser than that which is built upon it. And since there is another infallible authorityapart from Scripture, sola scriptura must be false.

By the way, the church fathers themselves were often members of the upper class. . . . So it’s not surprising that they view ecclesiology in autocratic terms. [p. 504]

Was the Jerusalem council “autocratic”? That was led by St. Peter, who was a fisherman; hardly an aristocratic background.

The people calling the shots in Acts 15 are apostles, plus a stepbrother of Jesus. [p. 505]

This is incorrect. It’s stated six times that the council was comprised of “the apostles and the elders” (15:2, 4, 6, 22-23; 16:4): which is yet another proof of apostolic succession, insofar as apostles and elders were working jointly and coming up with a decree that was agreed-to by the Holy Spirit. That strongly implies that elders / bishops were carry on as successors of the apostles after the era of the latter ended.

There wasn’t such a thing as Roman Catholics who believed what Vatican II says about non-Christian religions in Nostra Aetate until the mid-20C. [p. 505]

Really? Jesus (though not a Christian) said in the early 1st century about (as far as we know) a pagan Roman centurion: I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith” (Lk 7:9). Fr. Alfredo M. Morselli wrote:

I call up here a distinction by St. Thomas [Aquinas]: a) “Unbelief by way of pure negation” (infidelitas secundum negationem puram) in case a man may “be called an unbeliever merely because he has not the faith” “in those who have heard nothing about the faith”; this Unbelief is not a sin -and b) “Unbelief by way of opposition to the faith” (infidelitas secundum contrarietatem ad fidem) when “a man refuses to hear the faith” (S.Th II II, 10,1 c); this Unbelief is a sin.

The fact that “unbelief by way of pure negation” is not a sin, is not only a Thomist concept, but it’s also a verity of faith: St. Pius V [r. 1566-1572] condemned the proposition “Infidelitas pure negativa in his quibus Christus non est predicatus peccatum est” (D +1068) (= Purely negative unbelief, in those whom Christ was not preached to, is a sin). . . .

In fact St. Thomas teaches that “Nobody would believe if he doesn’t see he must believe” (non enim crederet nisi videret ea esse credenda – S.Th., II II, q. 1, a. 4 ad 2). Only God knows the degree of innocence or culpability in the heart of unbelievers. . . .

According to St. Thomas, the exercise of religion by an unbeliever may be a sort of natural preparation to receive grace: In IV Sent., II, d. 28 q. 1, a. 4 ad 4:

It’s possible, by natural reason, getting ready to have faith… If anyone, among pagan people, does as much he can (quod in se est faciat), God will reveal to him what is necessary for salvation, or by an inspiration that he will give him or by a savant whom He will send to him. (Ecumenical Gatherings at Assisi: A Defense; see much more related material in this article)

Moral of the story: when Steve Hays lectures about what Catholics through the centuries have believed or supposedly would not believe, don’t listen to him. He nearly always hadn’t prepared or researched the topic enough to be credible as any sort of self-proclaimed “expert.”

There wasn’t such a thing as Roman Catholic theistic evolutionists until Darwin. [p. 505]

Technically incorrect. There were thinkers who believed in some sort of biological process of creation, directed by God (as opposed to instant special creation all at once). One was St. Augustine, as John F. McCarthy noted:

This theory of primordial packages of forms later to emerge (often referred to by commentators as “seminal reasons”) is certainly developmental, but does not correspond with Darwinian evolution. Essential to Augustine’s theory is the idea that the order later to emerge was instilled by God in the beginning. Augustine also requires subsequent interventions by God to “plant” the forms whose “numbers” had already been instilled. Thus, as St. Thomas [Aquinas] points out, the ability of the earth to produce living forms was visualized by Augustine as a passive potency which disposed the matter to receive the forms but did not create the forms themselves. Augustine’s theory of primordial packages deserves more ample meditation and analysis in another place, especially with reference to theories of the development of living things, . . . Genesis 1:6-8 witnesses in several ways to the creative action of God. As the divine Fashioner of the universe, God guided the energies that He had invested in the primal matter by his creative intervention on the first day to bring the cosmos to its structured state. This is the unfolding of the active potency contained in St. Augustine’s “primordial packages.” But there is also implied in these verses an upward progress in the order of inorganic being which seems to have required additional creative divine interventions. (A Neo-Patristic Return to the First Four Days of Creation, Part IV; see also Parts One, Two, Three, Five, and Six; see also, ”How Augustine Reined in Science,” Kenneth J. Howell [This Rock, March 1998]; Davis A. Young, ”The Contemporary Relevance of Augustine’s View of Creation,” and Andrew J. Brown, ”The Relevance of Augustine’s View of Creation Re-Evaluated” [PDF] )

St. Thomas Aquinas also held to some extent to natural biological creative process guided by God in the 13th century, in a way remarkably similar to evolution:

In the first creation of things, however, the active principle was the Word of God, producing animals from elemental matter, either in act, according to some Fathers [e.g., Basil and Ambrose], or in potency (virtute) according to St. Augustine. Not that water or earth has in itself the power of producing all the animals, as Avicenna proposed, but the fact that animals can be produced from elemental matter by the power of seed or of the stars comes from the power originally given to the elements. (S. Th., I, q. 71, art. 1, ad 1.; see secondary source), and Part V and Part VI of McCarthy’s series, cited above, for more on St. Thomas Aquinas’ views)

Needless to say, we wouldn’t expect Hays, who was a young earth creationist, who believed that the earth was 6-10,000 years old (as I documented in my first reply), to have known this, nor to even care to do any research on it at all. And so — in his ignorance and bias — he once again lied about whether Catholics believed anything approximating biological evolution before Darwin.

There wasn’t such a thing as Catholics who redefined tradition as development until Newman. [p. 505]

Absolute horse manure! It’s not “redefining” tradition in the first place. It’s an interpretation of how tradition consistently proceeds through time. St. Augustine and especially St. Vincent Lerins were writing about it in the fifth century. St. Vincent was quite explicit in his Commonitorium, which was Newman’s starting-point when he was thinking through his theory of development.

Not only that, Hays is also ignorant regarding the immediate historical precursors of Newman, such as Johann Adam Möhler (1796-1838), the German priest and Church historian, who was writing vigorously and influentially about development of doctrine in his work, The Unity in the Church, or the Principle of Catholicism, Presented in the Spirit of the Church Fathers of the First Three Centuries, published in 1825, twenty years before Newman’s famous Essay. Entire books have been written about his theory of development.

And he didn’t have any clue that St. Thomas Aquinas — following Augustine, as he often did — also embraced development of doctrine in the 13th century. See: “Newman, Aquinas, and the Development of Doctrine,” by Joshua Madden, 30 June 2021.

There wasn’t such a thing as . . . Catholic opponents of capital punishment until the late 20C. [p. 505]

Wrong again (do we detect a pattern here?). Catholic apologist Mike Aquilina stated:

The great Fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries — Ambrose, Chrysostom, Augustine — recognized the right of the state to execute criminals, but urged rulers not to exercise that right. St. Ambrose told a Christian judge named Studius: “You will be excused if you do it, but you will be admired if you refrain when you might have done it” (“Letter,” 50).

Ambrose’s disciple, St. Augustine, characterized the good Christian ruler as “slow to punish, but ready to pardon” (“City of God,” 5.24). He justified capital punishment when there was “no other established method of restraining the hostility of the desperate.” Then, he said, “perhaps extreme necessity would demand the killing of such people” (“Letter,” 134).

Augustine recognized the state’s right to wield the sword, but he hoped that lethal use would be extremely rare. “As violence is used toward him who rebels and resists, so mercy is due to the vanquished or the captive, especially in the case in which future troubling of the peace is not to be feared” (“Letter,” 189).

The later Fathers synthesized the various testimonies of their predecessors and concluded that mercy should predominate among Christian peoples, and life should be spared in all but the rarest cases. In this they speak with the same voice as the Catechism of the Catholic Church, St. John Paul II (Evangelium Vitae, 56) and indeed all the recent popes, the bishops of the United States and all the bishops’ conferences that have issued statements on the subject.

In this matter as in most matters, we see consistency between the earliest Fathers and our current leaders and teachers — and greater clarity with the passage of time. (“The early Church and the death penalty,” 22 September 2016)

Clement wasn’t a pope. [p. 510]

St. Clement I, byname Clement of Rome, . . . fourth pope from 88 to 97 or from 92 to 101, . . . Eusebius of Caesarea dates his pontificate from 92 to 101, following that of St. Anacletus. He was succeeded by St. Evaristus. (Encyclopaedia Britannica, “St. Clement I”)

The renowned Protestant historian Philip Schaff wrote about Clement of Rome:

The first example of the exercise of a sort of papal authority is found towards the close of the first century in the letter of the Roman bishop Clement (d. 102) to the bereaved and distracted church of Corinth. . . . it can hardly be denied that the document reveals the sense of a certain superiority over all ordinary congregations. The Roman church here, without being asked (as far as appears), gives advice, with superior administrative wisdom, to an important church in the East, dispatches messengers to her, and exhorts her to order and unity in a tone of calm dignity and authority, as the organ of God and the Holy Spirit. This is all the more surprising if St. John, as is probable, was then still living in Ephesus, which was nearer to Corinth than Rome. (History of the Christian Church, vol. 2, § 50. Germs of the Papacy)

See my related papers:

Pope St. Clement of Rome & Papal Authority [7-28-21]

Is First Clement Non-Papal? (vs. Jason Engwer) [4-19-22]

***

***

Photo credit: The Whore of Babylon (workshop of Lucas Cranach): colorized illustration from Martin Luther’s 1534 translation of the Bible [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: The late Steve Hays was a Calvinist and anti-Catholic writer and apologist. This is one of my many critiques of Hays’ “Catholicism”: a 695-page self-published volume.

Authority & Magisterium; Papal Development; Jn 17 & Doctrinal Unity; “OT Magisterium”?; Christ’s Descent Into Hades; Protestants & the Church Fathers 

The late Steve Hays (1959-2020) was a Calvinist (and anti-Catholic) apologist, who was very active on his blog, called Triablogue (now continued by Jason Engwer). His 695-page self-published book, Catholicism — a collection of articles from his site — has graciously been made available for free. On 9 September 2006, Hays was quite — almost extraordinarily — charitable towards me. He wrote then:

I don’t think I’ve ever accused him of being a traitor or apostate or infidel. . . . I have nothing to say, one way or the other, regarding his state of grace. But his sincerity is unquestionable. I also don’t dislike him. . . . I don’t think there’s anything malicious about Armstrong—unlike some people who come to mind. In addition, I don’t think I’ve ever said he was unintelligent. For the record, it’s obvious that Armstrong has a quick, nimble mind. 

Two-and-a-half years later, starting in April 2009 and up through December 2011 (in the following quotations) his opinion radically changed, and he claimed that I have “an evil character,” am “actually evil,” “ego-maniac, narcissist,” “idolater,” “self-idolater,” “hack who pretends to be a professional apologist,” given to “chicanery,” one who doesn’t “do any real research,” “a stalwart enemy of the faith . . .  no better than [the atheists] Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens,” with an intent to “destroy faith in God’s word,” “schizophrenic,” “emotionally unhinged,” one who “doesn’t trust in the merit of Christ alone for salvation,” “has no peace of mind,” “a bipolar solipsist,” “split-personality,” and a “bad” man. He wasn’t one to mince words! See more gory details.

I feel no need whatsoever to reciprocate these silly and sinful insults. I just wanted the record to be known. I’ve always maintained that Hays was a very intelligent man, but habitually a sophist in methodology; sincere and well-meaning, but tragically and systematically wrong and misguided regarding Catholicism. That’s what I’m addressing, not the state of his heart and soul (let alone his eternal destiny). It’s a theological discussion. This is one of many planned critiques of his book (see my reasons why I decided to do this). Rather than list them all here, interested readers are directed to the “Steve Hays” section of my Anti-Catholicism web page, where they will all be listed. My Bible citations are from the RSV. Steve’s words will be in blue.

*****

[Chapter 9: Magisterium]

By what authority?

The dispute between Catholics and Protestants is in part a dispute over legitimate authority. You have two competing claimants: Scripture alone or the Roman Magisterium. [p. 464]

That’s not accurate. The completing claims are two opposing rules of faith: sola Scriptura (one infallible and ultimate authority) vs. Scripture-Tradition-Church (three completely harmonious infallible, ultimate authorities). Catholics routinely call their rule “the three-legged stool.” Once again, Hays seems unaware of this, since that phrase never appears in his book. Perhaps he understands the concept, though. We’ll see as we go through the final 230 pages.

Given the Magisterium, he can appeal to the authority of the Magisterium, yet he needs a preliminary argument independent of the Magisterium to legitimate the Magisterium in the first place. [p. 464]

Exactly; and we do that from the joint testimony of Holy Scripture and sacred apostolic tradition.

Standing in judgment of the Magisterium

Continuity at the level of Sacred Tradition must be demonstrable. The Magisterium must be able to show continuity, not stipulate continuity. The argument can’t be that it’s consistent because the Magisterium says so. No, that has it backwards. For the authority of the Magisterium hinges on continuity at the level of Sacred Tradition. So whether or not there is historical continuity at the level of Sacred Tradition is an independent judgment that must be made apart from the Magisterium. [p. 466]

Yep; and accordingly we Catholic apologists show that the Church fathers believed en masse in Catholic doctrines, or by consensus. See, for example my own massive research on whether the Church fathers held to sola Scriptura. But this is not just a Catholic burden. Protestants, in claiming that their revolution was a “reformation” assumed that they were brining back a state of affairs that was originally present in the early Church. Hays tries to be virtually totally ahistorical, but it’s all a pose and a pretense. It’s impossible for any Christian to be completely (consistently, thoughtfully) ahistorical.

If sola scriptura is the problem, is the magisterium the solution? 

Protestants don’t find the purported evidence for the magisterium convincing. They don’t find the biblical prooftexts and patristic prooftexts convincing. [p. 467]

It’s always fascinating to me why one group of people is utterly unconvinced of what another group finds totally convincing. All we can do is present the evidences that we believe are compelling for our own positions. Some will be convinced of them (for many reasons) and others won’t be (for many reasons). But the above two sentences are good because they show that Hays understood that our own argument for Catholic authority is not viciously circular, as he has exclaimed times without number. No! We set forth “biblical prooftexts and patristic prooftexts” in support of our position.

Now, Hays remained unpersuaded. But we do offer a non-circular basis for our claims (often utilizing the opinions of Protestant scholars in agreement on particular issues; I habitually do so). In other words, Hays may have disagreed with our conclusions, but he couldn’t say that our arguments are viciously circular and beg the question. They are not and do not, and even he knew that, as indicated by this statement. On the other hand, I turn the tables and argue that in fact it is Protestantism, denominationalism, and sola Scriptura that are logically self-defeating.

If God intended the magisterium to be the solution, why didn’t he provide convincing evidence? [p. 467]

We say that He did, and that’s the dispute.

Evidence sufficient so that everyone is persuaded by the “solution”? [p. 467]

In the real (and fallen) world, that rarely happens, for various reasons. But there can be a significant, noteworthy agreement within one group, above all others.

Umpires who bet on their own team

The papacy is, in itself, a product of theological development, so popes have a vested interest in developments that aggrandize the papacy. They have a direct hand in writing their own job description. [p. 480]

Is that why the most momentous dogmatic development in the history of the papacy — the ex cathedra declaration of the pope’s infallibility — was declared by an ecumenical council (Vatican I in 1870) and not by the pope himself, because popes are self-interested? Is that why it took over eighteen centuries to come about at this highest dogmatic and authoritative level: because all of those popes were so eager to write “their own job description” and declare that they had this power? Yes, makes a lot of sense, doesn’t it?

But what kind of unity does [Bishop Robert] Barron think Jn 17 refers to? Surely not doctrinal unity. [p. 480]

To the contrary, it’s certainly doctrinal unity along with every other kind. Jesus prayed “that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee . . . even as we are one, I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one” (Jn 17:21-23). The Father and the Son are equal as two Persons of the Trinity. They don’t disagree at all, on anything. Indeed, they cannot. It’s not even possible, because they are all omniscient as well as one in essence. Surely, if Jesus intended to sanction or incorporate the hundreds of contradictory, clashing Protestant theological claims, an analogy to the absolute unity of the Holy Trinity would be the very last one He would make.

The fact that He did use it is a profound indication and indeed a strong proof that He desires a profound doctrinal unity amongst Christians. Yet Hays denies this, and (rather bizarrely) thinks that “surely” Jesus did not have “doctrinal unity” in mind at all in this prayer. Wonders never cease. But what is a Protestant to do? This is such an obvious and unanswerable — downright embarrassing — condemnation of all denominationalism that it has to be rationalized away somehow. So Hays merely wished it away and his readers and followers uncritically gobbled it up, apparently not considering how utterly ludicrous of an opinion this was.

Proto-papacy

One objection that I’ve raised to Catholicism is the absence of an OT magisterium. Why is that necessary under the new covenant but unnecessary under the old covenant? [p. 486]

Hays in this section raised the issue of the OT priests as a proposed quasi-magisterium and shot it down. But he never mentioned prophets. I wrote in my book, The One-Minute Apologist (2007):

Since infallibility is inferior to, and a less extraordinary gift than inspiration, we should not be more surprised at it than we are at inspiration, or think it is less likely to occur, or implausible. God worked through the writers of the Bible (inspiration means, literally, “God-breathed”), and this made it possible for the Bible to be without error. Some of the biblical writers, like David, Paul, Matthew, and Peter, had been great sinners at one time or other in their lives. Yet they were used by God to write inspired Scripture. Even in Old Testament times, some were granted this gift of special protection from error; for example, the Levites, who were teachers, among other things:

Malachi 2:6-8: “True instruction was in his mouth, and no wrong was found on his lips. He walked with me in peace and uprightness, and he turned many from iniquity. For the lips of a priest should guard knowledge, and men should seek instruction from his mouth, for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts.”

Prophets routinely purported to proclaim the very “word of the LORD.” This is a much greater claim than infallibility under limited conditions. Papal infallibility is primarily a preventive, or “negative” guarantee, not positive inspiration. It is easy to argue, then, that infallibility is a far less noteworthy gift than the “revelation on the spot” that we observe in the prophets:

1 Samuel 15:10: “The word of the LORD came to Samuel:”

2 Samuel 23:2: “The Spirit of the LORD speaks by me, his word is upon my tongue.” [King David]

1 Chronicles 17:3: “But that same night the word of the LORD came to Nathan,”

Isaiah 38:4: “Then the word of the LORD came to Isaiah:”

Jeremiah 26:15: “. . . the LORD sent me to you to speak all these words in your ears.”

Ezekiel 33:1: “The word of the LORD came to me:” [“word of the LORD” appears 60 times in the Book of Ezekiel]

Haggai 1:13: “Then Haggai, the messenger of the LORD, spoke to the people with the LORD’s message, ‘I am with you, says the LORD.’”

The prophets received their inspiration by the Holy Spirit (2 Chron. 24:20; Neh. 9:30; Zech. 7:12). The Holy Spirit is now given to all Christians (Jn. 15:26; 1 Cor. 3:16), so it is perfectly possible and plausible that an even greater measure of the Holy Spirit would be given to leaders of the Church who have the responsibility to teach, since James wrote: “Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, for you know that we who teach shall be judged with greater strictness” (Jas. 3:1). The disciples were reassured by Jesus: “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth” (Jn. 16:13; cf. 8:32), so surely it makes sense that shepherds of the Christian flock would be given an extra measure of protection in order to better fulfill their duties.

To begin with, evangelicals aren’t bound by that article of the creed (“he descended into hell”). It’s just a dubious tradition. I think evangelicals should edit it out of the creed. [p. 491]

The descent into hell shouldn’t be in a creed. No point reinterpreting it. Just admit it was a mistake and move on. [p. 492]

First of all, it wasn’t hell but Hades / Sheol. The word hell actually has a wide latitude in theological usage. The Catechism of the Catholic Church elaborates:

633 Scripture calls the abode of the dead, to which the dead Christ went down, “hell” – Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek – because those who are there are deprived of the vision of God. Such is the case for all the dead, whether evil or righteous, while they await the Redeemer: which does not mean that their lot is identical, as Jesus shows through the parable of the poor man Lazarus who was received into “Abraham’s bosom” . . .

Hades / Sheol is distinct from the biblical Greek place, gehenna, which refers to “’the unquenchable fire’ reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe” (CCC 1034). So did Hays reject the notion that Jesus preached in Hades after His death? What did he think of these passages, then?:

Ephesians 4:8-10 Therefore it is said, “When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men.” [9] (In saying, “He ascended,” what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower parts of the earth? [10] He who descended is he who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.)

1 Peter 3:18-20 For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit; [19] in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison, [20] who formerly did not obey, . . .

Hays mentions and links to “an evangelical defense” of the clause in the creed that he rejects. It’s the article, “He Descended Into Hell” by Lee Irons, Ph.D. (November 2012). Irons very helpfully explains why the word “hell” is used in the creed and why it’s misleading to English speakers:

“Sheol” in Hebrew becomes “Hades” in Greek, and “Hades” in Greek becomes “Infer(n)us” in Latin, which is the word used in the Apostles’ Creed (descendit ad inferna [or inferos]). In the Vulgate, most occurrences of “Sheol” in the OT or “Hades” in the NT are rendered “Infer(n)us,” i.e., the underworld. . . .

So when we recite the Creed and say that Christ “descended into hell,” we are not saying that he descended into Gehenna or the Lake of Fire. Instead, we are affirming that he descended to the underworld, the realm of the dead, called “Sheol” in Hebrew and “Hades” in Greek. (p. 5)

Keep in mind that even if (ex hypothesi) Jesus went to hell when he died, there could be no eyewitnesses to that event this side of the grave. [p. 493]

So what? This is why we have a thing like inspired Scripture. Paul and peter wrote Scripture, inspired by God. The result was (literally) “God-breathed”). That’s how we can know it happened (from the two Bible passages above that referred to it).

Why is it unacceptable for you suppose that God failed to protect the church fathers from falsely believing the descensus ad infernos, but acceptable for you to suppose that God failed to protect the vast majority of Jews from repudiating the prophesied messiah? [p. 493]

Because inspired, inerrant revelation (Eph 4:8-10; 1 Pet 3:18-20) informs us that Jesus descended to Hades. Case closed.

Creeds are not the ultimate standard of comparison. Only revelation enjoys that distinction. [p. 493]

Exactly my present point!

From a Protestant standpoint, the church fathers aren’t authority figures. . . . you labor under the illusion that according to Protestant epistemology, the church fathers are authority figures? Where did you come up with that? [p. 491]

Oh, to name one, a guy named John Calvin:

What, then, you will say, is there no authority in the definitions of councils? Yes, indeed; for I do not contend that all councils are to be condemned, and all their acts rescinded, or, as it is said, made one complete erasure. (Institutes of the Christian Religion, IV, 9:8)

Thus those ancient Councils of Nice, Constantinople, the first of Ephesus, Chalcedon, and the like, which were held for refuting errors, we willingly embrace, and reverence as sacred, in so far as relates to doctrines of faith, for they contain nothing but the pure and genuine interpretation of Scripture, which the holy Fathers with spiritual prudence adopted to crush the enemies of religion who had then arisen. In some later councils, also, we see displayed a true zeal for religion, and moreover unequivocal marks of genius, learning, and prudence. (IV, 9:8)

Having proved that no power was given to the Church to set up any new doctrine, let us now treat of the power attributed to them in the interpretation of Scripture. We readily admit, that when any doctrine is brought under discussion, there is not a better or surer remedy than for a council of true bishops to meet and discuss the controverted point. There will be much more weight in a decision of this kind, to which the pastors of churches have agreed in common after invoking the Spirit of Christ, than if each, adopting it for himself, should deliver it to his people, or a few individuals should meet in private and decide. Secondly, When bishops have assembled in one place, they deliberate more conveniently in common, fixing both the doctrine and the form of teaching it, lest diversity give offence. Thirdly, Paul prescribes this method of determining doctrine. For when he gives the power of deciding to a single church, he shows what the course of procedure should be in more important cases—namely, that the churches together are to take common cognisance. And the very feeling of piety tells us, that if any one trouble the Church with some novelty in doctrine, and the matter be carried so far that there is danger of a greater dissension, the churches should first meet, examine the question, and at length, after due discussion, decide according to Scripture, which may both put an end to doubt in the people, and stop the mouths of wicked and restless men, so as to prevent the matter from proceeding farther. Thus when Arius arose, the Council of Nice was convened, and by its authority both crushed the wicked attempts of this impious man, and restored peace to the churches which he had vexed, and asserted the eternal divinity of Christ in opposition to his sacrilegious dogma. (IV, 9:13)

And I note in passing another guy of no particular import to Protestantism: Martin Luther. The celebrated Protestant historian Philip Schaff stated that the following letter of his referred to “the real presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper”:

Moreover, this article has been unanimously believed and held from the beginning of the Christian Church to the present hour, as may be shown from the books and writings of the dear fathers, both in the Greek and Latin languages, — which testimony of the entire holy Christian Church ought to be sufficient for us, even if we had nothing more. For it is dangerous and dreadful to hear or believe anything against the unanimous testimony, faith, and doctrine of the entire holy Christian Church, as it has been held unanimously in all the world up to this year 1500. Whoever now doubts of this, he does just as much as if he believed in no Christian Church, and condemns not only the entire holy Christian Church as a damnable heresy, but Christ Himself, and all the Apostles and Prophets, . . . (Letter to Albrecht, Margrave of Brandenburg and Duke of Prussia, 1532; Weimar German edition of Luther’s Works, Vol. XXX; cited in Schaff, The Life and Labours of St. Augustine, Oxford University: 1854, 95. Italics are Schaff’s own)

Primal, classic, “Reformation” Protestantism was not ahistorical at all. It’s true that the infallibility of tradition and Church were rejected, but not any and all authority from the Church fathers. Hays’ radical brand of ahistorical Christianity came later on, in certain fringe streams of the Protestant revolution. He certainly doesn’t speak for all of Protestantism, and especially not for Luther and Calvin and Chemnitz, who can safely be taken as higher authorities regarding the nature of Protestantism than Steve Hays.

***

***

Photo credit: The Whore of Babylon (workshop of Lucas Cranach): colorized illustration from Martin Luther’s 1534 translation of the Bible [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: The late Steve Hays was a Calvinist and anti-Catholic writer and apologist. This is one of my many critiques of Hays’ “Catholicism”: a 695-page self-published volume.

Lay Catholic Apologists; Orthodoxy Defined; Rule of Faith; Canon Redux; Protestantism’s Magisterium of Scholars & Ever-Changing Sexual Morality; Comparative Exegesis 

The late Steve Hays (1959-2020) was a Calvinist (and anti-Catholic) apologist, who was very active on his blog, called Triablogue (now continued by Jason Engwer). His 695-page self-published book, Catholicism — a collection of articles from his site — has graciously been made available for free. On 9 September 2006, Hays was quite — almost extraordinarily — charitable towards me. He wrote then:

I don’t think I’ve ever accused him of being a traitor or apostate or infidel. . . . I have nothing to say, one way or the other, regarding his state of grace. But his sincerity is unquestionable. I also don’t dislike him. . . . I don’t think there’s anything malicious about Armstrong—unlike some people who come to mind. In addition, I don’t think I’ve ever said he was unintelligent. For the record, it’s obvious that Armstrong has a quick, nimble mind. 

Two-and-a-half years later, starting in April 2009 and up through December 2011 (in the following quotations) his opinion radically changed, and he claimed that I have “an evil character,” am “actually evil,” “ego-maniac, narcissist,” “idolater,” “self-idolater,” “hack who pretends to be a professional apologist,” given to “chicanery,” one who doesn’t “do any real research,” “a stalwart enemy of the faith . . .  no better than [the atheists] Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens,” with an intent to “destroy faith in God’s word,” “schizophrenic,” “emotionally unhinged,” one who “doesn’t trust in the merit of Christ alone for salvation,” “has no peace of mind,” “a bipolar solipsist,” “split-personality,” and a “bad” man. He wasn’t one to mince words! See more gory details.

I feel no need whatsoever to reciprocate these silly and sinful insults. I just wanted the record to be known. I’ve always maintained that Hays was a very intelligent man, but habitually a sophist in methodology; sincere and well-meaning, but tragically and systematically wrong and misguided regarding Catholicism. That’s what I’m addressing, not the state of his heart and soul (let alone his eternal destiny). It’s a theological discussion. This is one of many planned critiques of his book (see my reasons why I decided to do this). Rather than list them all here, interested readers are directed to the “Steve Hays” section of my Anti-Catholicism web page, where they will all be listed. My Bible citations are from the RSV. Steve’s words will be in blue.

*****

[Chapter 8: Canonics]

The gates of hell shall not prevail

Like so many Catholic apologists, Williams is a layman. Not a Catholic theologian like Karl Rahner or Gerhard Ludwig Müller. Not a graduate of a Catholic seminary. [p. 403]

Like so many Catholic apologists, G. K. Chesterton was a layman. Not a Catholic theologian like Karl Rahner or Gerhard Ludwig Müller. Not a graduate of a Catholic seminary or even of any college. Like so many Catholic apologists, Peter Kreeft is a layman. Not a Catholic theologian like Karl Rahner or Gerhard Ludwig Müller. Not a graduate of a Catholic seminary, but a philosopher.

Like so many Catholic apologists, Malcom Muggeridge, Frank Sheed, and Thomas Howard were laymen. Not graduates from Catholic seminary, but a journalist, a lawyer, and an English professor. Etc., etc. ad infinitum. Like so many Protestant apologists (among whom he is widely considered to have been the best), C. S. Lewis was a layman. Not a graduate of a Protestant seminary or Bible college, but a professor of literature. Etc., etc.

What we’re getting from him is the usual version of Catholicism presented by lay Catholic apologists. An idealized, retro version of Catholicism. [p. 403]

In other words, they present and defend Catholic orthodoxy: the actual teaching of the Church, not the dishonest pseudo-version presented by theological liberals and dissidents, whom Hays ridiculously and quixotically pretends are the magisterium and gold standard of Catholicism. It’s a constant theme of his, but the endless repeating of a lie makes it no less of a lie or no stronger an argument.

A version of Catholicism that’s well to the right of mainstream Catholic scholarship (e.g. Bible scholars, church historians). [p. 403]

Of course it is, because these scholars Hays has in mind are to the left of the norm and the standard: the “radical center” of orthodoxy. But almost all reputable Catholic apologists are in the center of the spectrum: orthodox.

Well to the right of the contemporary hierarchy. [p. 403]

Since no infallible doctrine has been changed, this is untrue as well. They are orthodox as a group. Individuals may be, and are, heterodox on this or that issue, but as individuals they have no magisterial authority, anymore than scholars do, as persons or as a group.

From a Protestant perspective, “Scripture” (or the Bible) is the inspired record of God’s public, propositional revelation. By “public”, I mean a revelation that’s normative at every time and place–unlike a topical private revelation to provide guidance to a particular individual in a particular situation. [p. 403]

From a Catholic perspective, “Scripture” (or the Bible) is the inspired record of God’s public, propositional revelation. By “public”, I mean a revelation that’s normative at every time and place–unlike a topical private revelation to provide guidance to a particular individual in a particular situation.

If there is no viable or comparable alternative to Scripture (as defined), then by process of elimination, sola Scriptura is the only remaining option. [p. 403]

But of course there is, because that same inspired revelation teaches that authoritative tradition and a Church exist, and are infallible under certain defined conditions. The Bible itself teaches a “three-legged stool” rule of faith, not sola Scriptura.

In that respect, the sufficiency of Scripture is defined by contrast to the alternatives. They are insufficient. Indeed, they are false alternatives. You don’t have to prove sola Scriptura or the sufficiency of Scripture directly; rather, you only have to disprove rival paradigms. [p. 403]

The formal sufficiency of Scripture is defined by contrast to the alternative, sola Scriptura. It is insufficient. Indeed, it’s a false and unbiblical alternative. We can not only disprove sola Scriptura from Scripture, but also prove our rival paradigm from the Bible.

If Scripture is the only source of God’s public, propositional revelation, then it naturally enjoys a certain primacy in relation to other sources of information or belief. Divine revelation is normative in a way that nonrevelatory sources or putative candidates are not. [p. 403]

In terms of being inspired yes, but in terms of infallible authority, the norms of faith, and the rule of faith, no. Sacred Tradition and the Catholic Church are also infallible and interpretive norms. Scripture can be primary in one sense and equal in others, to tradition and the Church, and works in tandem with them, just as God the Father has “monarchical primacy” in one sense, and is equal in others, to God the Son, Jesus Christ, and God the Holy Spirit, and works in tandem with them.

[T]he sufficiency of Scripture doesn’t rule out the necessity of extrabiblical evidence to identify Scripture and interpret Scripture. [p. 404]

That’s correct. But if the latter sources are used, they are merely fallible, so the standard of authority and the certainty are considerably less. And that is a real epistemological problem for Protestants (in terms of canonicity), whether they realize it or not. R. C. Sproul did, to his credit. Hays did not, and continued to play games and pretend that there was no inherent difficulty in such a scenario.

Feser fizzles

Catholic apologists typically ignore the internal evidence for the canon. It’s important to draw attention to that line of evidence. [p. 415]

That disregards the amount of internal evidence for the inspiration of Scripture and the canon of Scripture. [p. 418]

I don’t. In my article, “Are All the Biblical Books Self-Evidently Canonical?” (6-22-06), I wrote at the end:

The Bible can’t be used to produce an argument based on what individual biblical books supposedly claim, when they don’t in fact claim it. . . . I don’t deny any “self-attestation”; I only deny that this alone was sufficient to establish a known canon with definite boundaries, or that it is as sweeping a characteristic of “all” the biblical books as some Protestants make out.

Likewise, in my article, “Are All Bible Books Self-Evidently Inspired?” (6-19-06), the first draft of what later appeared in my book, The One-Minute Apologist (2007), I observed:

There are indeed several internal biblical evidences of inspiration and canonicity, yet (despite this fact), there were many differences in the early Church regarding biblical books. . . . nothing illustrates the falsity of the claim of “self-attesting” books better than the history of the process of canonization itself. . . . If everything were so obvious, how could there be so many differences? . . . Believers in the early Church (such as St. Athanasius or St. Augustine) were just as zealous for the Bible and Christian truth as Christians today. Yet they often disagreed on this score. . . .

It’s very easy to make such (somewhat logically circular) claims, and “hindsight is 20-20”; however, there is no way to test or disprove (or, for that matter, prove) them other than by looking at what actually happened in history. . . . The fact remains that there were disagreements because some books were not all that clearly inspired (and other non-biblical books seemed to be).

I also cited F. F. Bruce in agreement:

[O]nly one book of the New Testament explicitly claims prophetic inspiration. (The Canon of Scripture, Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1988, 280-281)

I think Bruce was referring to Revelation: “the words of the prophecy of this book” (22:18) and “the book of this prophecy” (22:19). 2 Timothy 3:16 states that “All scripture is inspired” but of course Paul in that letter doesn’t identify which books these are. I cited another opinion of Bruce’s, too:

It is unlikely, for example, that the Spirit’s witness would enable a reader to discern that Ecclesiastes is the word of God while Ecclesiasticus is not . . . (Ibid., 281-282)

None of this is in line with Hays’ fanciful view that every single book is self-evidently inspired, thus precluding any need for authoritative Church pronouncements. Had Hays been around in, say, AD 200, surely he would have (so it would seem from his confident rhetoric) correctly identified (167 years before Athanasius) every single biblical book in both Testaments, and would have (as an extra bonus) declared that anyone who didn’t agree with him either: 1) couldn’t comprehend what was so plain in the Bible (i.e., was stupid), 2) had a judgment clouded by sin, 3) was deliberately dishonest, and/or 4) had a nefarious “Catholic agenda” complete with the obligatory circular reasoning and “infallibility regress.”

Actually, there are contemporary Catholic commentators who often admit that traditional Catholic exegesis was wrong, and Protestants were right. [p. 417]

DUH! No kidding! Seeing that the Church has only required one definitive interpretation of a mere 7-9 Bible passages, then all the other thousands could be interpreted differently, and many times (as in all fields of knowledge ands scholarship) a Protestant exegete may have been right, and one or many Catholics wrong. None of this adversely affects infallibility in the least, because it is overwhelmingly not in play. Protestant polemicists (at least anti-Catholic ones) seem constitutionally unable to comprehend how “free” Catholic exegetes are. I’ll keep telling them the truth about that. Maybe over decades it’ll eventually sink into their thick skulls.

Moreover, sometimes Protestant exegetes massively support positions regarded as “Catholic distinctives” in a way that Steve would vehemently disagree with, such as, for example, the thirty I have documented who agree that Peter was the “Rock.” Truth is truth, wherever it comes from.

Sola scriptura . . . denies the infallibility of the church. [p. 418]

Thank you, and of sacred tradition, too. Protestants, defending this false doctrine, often overlook what it denies, over against what it asserts. What it denies (and what it contradicts in the Bible) is what Catholic apologists usually focus upon.

[T]he Catholic formulation of the Trinity isn’t all that rigorous. Consider Karl Rahner’s reformulations. [p. 419]

First of all (I reiterate for the umpteenth time) one man doesn’t definitively speak for the Church (unless it’s the pope, and even then under very specific conditions). Hays seems to perpetually project onto us the “magisterium of head counts of scholars” that in effect, functions as the Protestant authority structure. It’s a “sociological magisterium,” if you will. If lots of good ol’ evangelical and Calvinist scholars say one thing (a form of both the ad populum and genetic fallacies), then it becomes gospel truth (at least for a time). We don’t function that way, and it would be nice if Hays (not an unintelligent man) could have figured this out.

Secondly, I don’t know if Rahner “reformulated” the Trinity in heretical terms or not. I’d have to see what he wrote and thought about it. Chances are it was a legitimate development. But I certainly wouldn’t take Hays’ bald assertion of this, rather than actually examining it. If he wants to make such a claim, then he needs to present the evidence. But that was habitually too laborious for him to do. He wants to make the potshots and then retreat and laugh about people’s reactions, rather than seriously discuss the topic with an open mind.

Protestant scholars — in a burst of “inspiration” no doubt — figured out after 1930 that contraception was fine and dandy, even though no Christian group had ever held the position before that time. “Everyone” eventually started believing it in Protestant circles (especially after 1960 and the Pill), and so it then became okay! Then killjoy Pope St. Paul VI expressed the traditional Christian teaching in 1968: that it was not okay, and continued to be grave sin, since moral truths don’t change.

Recently, by the way, Pope Francis (supposedly a flaming liberal dissident, according to Hays and even many deluded or misinformed Catholics these days)  upheld and reaffirmed unchanging Catholic teaching on contraception. And it’s been like this with one moral (especially sexual) teaching after another in Protestant circles. Lots of Protestant denominations now think abortion is fine, and sodomy, and “gay marriage” and cohabitation and masturbation and divorce and euthanasia and self-mutilating sterilization procedures. You name it. I replied to arguments from Steve Hays regarding masturbation in 2007 (and — rarity of rarities! — he actually directly interacted with me a bit, before he decided I was “evil”). He claimed he wasn’t for or agin’ it, but then talked about it as a “sexual safety valve” and wrote that “the morality of masturbation is debatable”.

[A]llegorical exegesis is contrary to how later Bible writers interpret earlier Bible writers. [p. 419]

Really? Not always. St. Paul in Galatians 4:21-31 explicitly states about aspects of the story of Hagar and Sarah, “Now this is an allegory” (4:24). In 1 Corinthians 9:9-10 Paul provides an allegorical interpretation of the injunction to not muzzle an ox when it is plowing corn, comparing that to the obligation to pay Christian workers. In Romans 5:14 he refers to “Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.” Elijah was a type of John the Baptist, etc. There are many such examples.

Can we be sure?

[Y]ou offer no counterargument. Rather, you simply push the rewind button and replay your prerecorded message. . . . All you have is slogans. You have nothing to back up the slogans. . . . Do you think it’s clever for you to offer these snappy, unintelligent comebacks? Don’t try to
be clever at the expense of intellectual honesty or comprehension. . . . I notice that when your claims are challenged, you have nothing in reserve. So you just repeat the original claim. You don’t rebut the counterargument. [pp. 449-451]

These are remarkably accurate descriptions of Steve’s own frequent methodology. He can see and object to it in others but not in his own rhetoric and polemics.

Modern Catholicism treats Scripture as eminently fallible. [p. 449]

This is a lie. Catholicism treats Holy Scripture as it always has: as inerrant inspired revelation. See: “Vatican II and the Inerrancy of the Bible,” by Jeffrey Pinyan (10-10-10), “Vatican II Upheld Biblical Inerrancy (vs. David Palm)” [4-23-20], and “The Inerrancy of Scripture and the Second Vatican Council,” by Mark Joseph Zia, Faith & Reason, 2006.

***

***

Photo credit: The Whore of Babylon (workshop of Lucas Cranach): colorized illustration from Martin Luther’s 1534 translation of the Bible [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: The late Steve Hays was a Calvinist and anti-Catholic writer and apologist. This is one of my many critiques of Hays’ “Catholicism”: a 695-page self-published volume.

Jerusalem Council & Authoritative Bible Interpretation; Protestant Canon Conundrums; Hays’ Obsession with Dissident Catholic Scholars; Bible, Tradition, & Church

The late Steve Hays (1959-2020) was a Calvinist (and anti-Catholic) apologist, who was very active on his blog, called Triablogue (now continued by Jason Engwer). His 695-page self-published book, Catholicism — a collection of articles from his site — has graciously been made available for free. On 9 September 2006, Hays was quite — almost extraordinarily — charitable towards me. He wrote then:

I don’t think I’ve ever accused him of being a traitor or apostate or infidel. . . . I have nothing to say, one way or the other, regarding his state of grace. But his sincerity is unquestionable. I also don’t dislike him. . . . I don’t think there’s anything malicious about Armstrong—unlike some people who come to mind. In addition, I don’t think I’ve ever said he was unintelligent. For the record, it’s obvious that Armstrong has a quick, nimble mind. 

Two-and-a-half years later, starting in April 2009 and up through December 2011 (in the following quotations) his opinion radically changed, and he claimed that I have “an evil character,” am “actually evil,” “ego-maniac, narcissist,” “idolater,” “self-idolater,” “hack who pretends to be a professional apologist,” given to “chicanery,” one who doesn’t “do any real research,” “a stalwart enemy of the faith . . .  no better than [the atheists] Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens,” with an intent to “destroy faith in God’s word,” “schizophrenic,” “emotionally unhinged,” one who “doesn’t trust in the merit of Christ alone for salvation,” “has no peace of mind,” “a bipolar solipsist,” “split-personality,” and a “bad” man. He wasn’t one to mince words! See more gory details.

I feel no need whatsoever to reciprocate these silly and sinful insults. I just wanted the record to be known. I’ve always maintained that Hays was a very intelligent man, but habitually a sophist in methodology; sincere and well-meaning, but tragically and systematically wrong and misguided regarding Catholicism. That’s what I’m addressing, not the state of his heart and soul (let alone his eternal destiny). It’s a theological discussion. This is one of many planned critiques of his book (see my reasons why I decided to do this). Rather than list them all here, interested readers are directed to the “Steve Hays” section of my Anti-Catholicism web page, where they will all be listed. My Bible citations are from the RSV. Steve’s words will be in blue.

*****

[Chapter 7: Hermeneutics]

Reading Scripture in community

A popular Catholic trope is that, contrary to sola Scriptura, Scripture was meant to be read in community. It can’t be properly understood apart from the interpretive community of faith. To flesh out the argument: the Bible is the Church’s book. [p. 330]

Indeed. I guess this is why the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) met to declare an authoritative interpretation of the Bible regarding whether circumcision (see Acts 11:2-3; 15:1-2, 5) was required for Gentile converts (it decided that it wasn’t) and the relationship of the Mosaic food requirements for all Christians. The council of apostles and elders (15:2, 4) declared that believers ought to “abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled” (Acts 15:29). Peter had already had a vision from God about most foods being clean (Acts 10:9-17; 11:4-9).

But mere visions (even if a pope has them) are not enough to set policy for the entire Church for all time (in other words, this was an example of private revelation, which can’t bind the entire Church). That takes councils getting together, with popes presiding. This is Scripture being “read in community” and “understood” by “the interpretive community of faith.” In other words, it’s a clear example of what Hays opposed; what he thought was not the biblical position. Once the authoritative, infallible decision was reached, Paul and Timothy “went on their way through the cities” and “delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem” (Acts 16:4). This is Catholic hierarchical, institutional, conciliar and papal authority through and through!, and decidedly not sola Scriptura. 

To understand the Bible, you must read it from the viewpoint of the interpretive community. You can’t understand the Bible as an outside observer, but only as an insider. [p. 330]

Ultimately, yes (in terms of correct doctrine). The point is not that no one can possibly understand anything in the Bible on their own, without the Church telling them what to believe. The point is that there is a necessity for authoritative interpretation from the Church on some matters, concerning which there is dissent and confusion and discord. At the time of the Jerusalem Council, very early on in the history of the Church, the big dividing issue was circumcision and the Mosaic dietary requirements. The Church spoke, and the result was that male Christians thereafter were not required to be circumcised, nor were any Christians bound to levitical dietary regulations. There is no way that this can be spun as some form of sola Scriptura.

What’s their reference class for the interpretive community? [p. 330]

The Jerusalem Council, the biblical prototype and model of ecumenical councils led by the pope. Hays himself (whether he was aware of it or not) followed this decision involving conciliar infallibility in the first century. I’m sure he didn’t follow the entire Mosiac collection of dietary laws. And I’m equally sure that no one came around when he was born demanding that he be circumcised in order to fulfill the “entrance rite” for being accepted into the Christian Church.

And there are other biblical indications: the Ethiopian eunuch desiring to “understand” the Bible and saying, “How can I, unless some one guides me?” (Acts 8:30-31). And so Philip (directed by “an angel of the Lord”!: 8:26, 29) helped him understand Isaiah 53: a messianic prophecy (8:31-35). Authoritative interpretation and limits to exegetical and doctrinal speculation were expressed by Pope Peter, in writing about Paul’s epistles: “There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures” (2 Pet 3:16). It was the same in the Old Testament. When Ezra read the “read” the “law” (Neh 8:2-3) to the populace in Jerusalem, many Levites were present, who “helped the people to understand the law” (Neh 8:7) and who “gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading” (Neh 8:8). There is (again) Hays’ “interpretive community” that he demanded to see. Oh, the blessed assurance that the Church provides!

The Bible and the Church

[Hays is saying that Catholics say:] The Bible can only be understood by the community of faith, within the community of faith. [p. 332]

We would, rather, express this more specifically and precisely as “the Bible can be understood by individuals, but if we are not to have inevitable competing Bible interpretations on important doctrinal and moral issues (where some folks are wrong), there must be a final say in some authoritative Church body. The “buck” has to stop somewhere. It’s necessary because of biblical commands to seek and enjoy a profound unity and the high biblical regard for received and lived-out ‘truth.'”

[T]he contrast between individuals and communities is often deceptive, for communities can be and often are characterized by possessive and aggressive groupthink. Their like-mindedness codifies a particular individual interpretation. Within religious communities, powerful, influential individuals vie for supremacy, to make their particular vision the dominant vision. [p. 332]

Yes, among mere men, thinking carnally, lusting for power and importance and all the rest, but in the Church, such decisions are led by the Holy Spirit, as we saw in Peter’s vision, culminating in the decision of the Jerusalem Council. That was God speaking through men, not men trying to be little gods.

Communal reading

Reading in community is a euphemism for reading the text according to a particular theological and hermeneutical tradition. [p. 334]

Exactly! The one true, apostolic tradition, passed down, as Paul constantly refers to. It is possible to have one truth! Protestants are so conditioned to never believe that they have arrived at final determinations of various and sundry doctrines, that such biblical thinking is almost foreign to them.

In Catholicism, moreover, it isn’t truly communal. Rather, it’s the Magisterium dictating to the laity what the text means. Their role is to listen and obey. [p. 334]

This is the gross anti-Catholic caricature of what I have been trying to explain in this reply. It’s easy to lie about one’s theological opponent, so that folks reading will agree that the straw man created is ridiculous and only worthy to be mocked and derided. In Catholicism there is an ultimate “boundary” of orthodoxy. G. K. Chesterton compared this to a fence on a hill that has drop-off cliffs in all directions. If the fence wasn’t there, children playing on the hill would always be worried about falling off the edge. But when it’s there, they feel both safe and free to carry on with their frolicking. I explained in a past reply that the Catholic Church only requires specific interpretations for 7-9 biblical passages. But she requires orthodoxy of all her followers, for their own good. James wrote:

James 5:19-20 My brethren, if any one among you wanders from the truth and some one brings him back, [20] let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.

Paul wrote:

Romans 2:8 but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury.

2 Timothy 3:2-8 For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, [3] inhuman, implacable, slanderers, profligates, fierce, haters of good, [4] treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, [5] holding the form of religion but denying the power of it. Avoid such people. [6] For among them are those who make their way into households and capture weak women, burdened with sins and swayed by various impulses, [7] who will listen to anybody and can never arrive at a knowledge of the truth. [8] As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith;

That’s orthodoxy; the truth, the “oneness” that Jesus prayed at the Last Supper that His followers would possess (John 17). This is what God wants all Christians to believe, for their own good and for their ultimate salvation, and the good of the Body of Christ.

[Chapter 8: Canonics]

An inspired table of contents

Sola scriptura doesn’t rule out the use of supplementary extrabiblical information to identify the canon. [p. 353]

Okay; but the result is that the Protestant is left with a fallible canon, since in their rule of faith only the Bible is an infallible authority. Thus, the Bible is inspired, but in order to identify what is the Bible, the Protestant must submit to fallible “extrabiblical information.” And of course this additional “information” was (drats!) the Catholic Church. It follows, then, that the Protestant has to rely on Catholic authority (regarded by them as fallible) in order to get their Bible. Irony of ironies . . .

So when we tally the internal evidence for the NT canon, it’s pretty easy to compile an inspired table of contents. [p. 355]

I see. Why, then, did no one until St. Athanasius in AD 367 list all 27 of them? All those folks (for 335 years or so after the death of Christ) couldn’t figure out the “internal evidence” that should have made it “pretty easy” to determine the canonicity of the 27 books, according to Steve “hindsight is 20-20” Hays? Why is that?

[The] Catholic apologist . . . asked for an inspired table of contents. Since, by his own admission, the NT writings in question are divinely inspired, if we can derive a table of contents from the self-attributions, then that amounts to an inspired table of contents. His challenge was met. [p. 335]

No it wasn’t at all. If it were that simple, the 27 books would have been accepted and proclaimed by someone at around AD 100. But it took another 267 years. Why can’t Protestants who make up silly arguments like this see that?

Speaking of St. Robert Bellarmine, Hays opines:

[S]ome of his arguments are so ludicrous that they really don’t require comment: to quote them is to refute them. [p. 357]

How often have I had this same feeling during these reviews! And when I do, I skip over the pseudo-“argument” / pablum that Hays regurgitated. This explains some of the jumps in page numbers in my citations.

The problem with that argument from a Catholic standpoint is that modern mainstream Catholic Bible scholarship denies the unity of Scripture. [p. 358]

For Hays, so-called “mainstream” Catholic scholars are synonymous with modernists / progressives / theologically liberal / heterodox / dissidents. Frankly (my dear), who gives a damn what they think? All that matters is what the Church in her magisterium actually teaches. That’s what Catholics are obliged to believe, and what they are bound to. But Hays hardly ever had time to deal with that; in other words, what was required and actually relevant in a discussion such as this. That would make it an intelligent, serious discussion, and rule #1 in anti-Catholic apologetics is to avoid that at all costs.

[A] contemporary Catholic apologist might object that the positions of modern mainstream Catholic scholarship carry no authority. [p. 359]

Indeed they would! Bingo! That is, in cases where they aren’t orthodox and don’t think — and even sadder, deliberately don’t seek to think — with the Mind of the Church, they have no authority. Even if they do express orthodox opinions, its not magisterial and any Catholic is free to disagree with them. Likewise, a bishop speaking on his own has no magisterial authority. He only does in an ecumenical council, in league with the pope.

[T]he fact that Christians disagree on the meaning of Scripture carries no presumption that God has intervened by instituting the Magisterium to clear that up. [p. 360]

The problem here is that inspired Scripture does teach a magisterium, in the example of the Jerusalem Council and in Paul’s description of “the church of the living God” as “the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15).

[T]he Bible can never be evidence for the Magisterium. [p. 362]

I just showed how it is.

It doesn’t occur to Bellarmine that what Jesus told the disciples between the Resurrection and Ascension was incorporated into the sermons in Acts and general epistles. In addition, that can also be reflected in the Gospels, when the narrator says or indicates that something Jesus did fulfills the OT. [p. 368]

There is no reason (and certainly no biblical reason) to believe this. We’re talking about forty days of the risen Jesus’ appearances, and many, many more words spoken by Him during that time than we have in the NT. If there is no reason, then why does Hays assert it? Well, it’s raw, unverified, utterly arbitrary and unsupported extrabiblical tradition recruited for the cause of opposing wicked Catholic tradition.

No doubt the apostles taught some things that were never recorded. That just means it wasn’t necessary for the universal church. [p. 369]

Again, this is completely arbitrary. Where is such a notion in the Bible? Nowhere (I’ll save you the trouble of looking). So why should we accept such a bald, unsubstantiated speculation from Hays? We shouldn’t. It’s absurd, and simply another dogmatic Protestant tradition with no basis.

***

***

Photo credit: The Whore of Babylon (workshop of Lucas Cranach): colorized illustration from Martin Luther’s 1534 translation of the Bible [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: The late Steve Hays was a Calvinist and anti-Catholic writer and apologist. This is one of my many critiques of Hays’ “Catholicism”: a 695-page self-published volume.

Catholic Conversion; Why Infallibility?; Limbo; Catholicism & Exegesis; Salvation(?) by Faith Alone?; St. Cardinal Newman & Pope St. Pius X

The late Steve Hays (1959-2020) was a Calvinist (and anti-Catholic) apologist, who was very active on his blog, called Triablogue (now continued by Jason Engwer). His 695-page self-published book, Catholicism — a collection of articles from his site — has graciously been made available for free. On 9 September 2006, Hays was quite — almost extraordinarily — charitable towards me. He wrote then:

I don’t think I’ve ever accused him of being a traitor or apostate or infidel. . . . I have nothing to say, one way or the other, regarding his state of grace. But his sincerity is unquestionable. I also don’t dislike him. . . . I don’t think there’s anything malicious about Armstrong—unlike some people who come to mind. In addition, I don’t think I’ve ever said he was unintelligent. For the record, it’s obvious that Armstrong has a quick, nimble mind. 

Two-and-a-half years later, starting in April 2009 and up through December 2011 (in the following quotations) his opinion radically changed, and he claimed that I have “an evil character,” am “actually evil,” “ego-maniac, narcissist,” “idolater,” “self-idolater,” “hack who pretends to be a professional apologist,” given to “chicanery,” one who doesn’t “do any real research,” “a stalwart enemy of the faith . . .  no better than [the atheists] Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens,” with an intent to “destroy faith in God’s word,” “schizophrenic,” “emotionally unhinged,” one who “doesn’t trust in the merit of Christ alone for salvation,” “has no peace of mind,” “a bipolar solipsist,” “split-personality,” and a “bad” man. He wasn’t one to mince words! See more gory details.

I feel no need whatsoever to reciprocate these silly and sinful insults. I just wanted the record to be known. I’ve always maintained that Hays was a very intelligent man, but habitually a sophist in methodology; sincere and well-meaning, but tragically and systematically wrong and misguided regarding Catholicism. That’s what I’m addressing, not the state of his heart and soul (let alone his eternal destiny). It’s a theological discussion. This is one of many planned critiques of his book (see my reasons why I decided to do this). Rather than list them all here, interested readers are directed to the “Steve Hays” section of my Anti-Catholicism web page, where they will all be listed. My Bible citations are from the RSV. Steve’s words will be in blue.

*****

[Chapter 5: Convert Syndrome]

The gingerbread house-part 1

So many Catholic conversion stories have a cerebral emphasis. [p. 247]

Yes, because Catholicism is a thinking mans’ religion: the opposite of the small sub-group of Protestant fundamentalism, which is anti-intellectual. In many cases, it was a matter of learning things one had never been taught, and reading from a perspective other than Protestant.  That process is “cerebral.” In my case, it was learning a lot about Church history and development of doctrine that I had never been taught. Historical facts are not “touchy-feely / warm fuzzy” experiential. One has to learn it and think about it. But there are lots of different types of conversion stories.

The appeal of Catholicism is like the gingerbread house in Hansel & Gretel. It presents a startling contrast between what’s on the outside and what’s on the inside. There’s the yummy exterior, which is the bait–but once inside, there’s the cannibalistic witch. [p. 247]

Sure, if one converts based on mere ideals and outward appearances, and relying on human beings to never let one down, then they will be in for a big disappointment. Catholicism is blessed “on the ground” with massive ignorance and nominalism and hypocrisy just as Protestantism is. It’s the “dumb man’s” approach to think that everything will be perfect. The wise convert understands the biblical teaching that the Church has flawed people in it, but that God is at work to guide His Church on the level of doctrines and dogmas and moral teaching.

They convert because they believe the doctrines to be true, as opposed to thinking that all Catholics will be perfect saints. Nothing comes close to the Catholic Church in these regards. We alone have preserved the full moral teaching of the Bible and the apostles. Everyone else has compromised and caved, to one degree or another (on abortion and divorce and cohabitation and contraception and so-called “gay marriage”, and now, an increasing euthanasia and even infanticide in the most liberal states). This is a major reason why I am a Catholic. I got tired of Church groups that compromised on serious moral issues.

They convert to Catholicism before they experience Catholic parish life. Like the gingerbread house, this sets up a dichotomy between Catholicism on paper and the church on the ground. [p. 247]

One simply looks around for a good, orthodox, pious parish where the people actually believe and practice Catholicism. It’s not difficult: at least not in urban areas. Occasionally, it may be difficult to find a good parish close by. Avoid the theological liberal garbage like the plague . . .

By comparison, there’s nothing ironic about reading yourself into evangelicalism or Calvinism because, initially, the primary question is whether it’s true. [p. 248]

That’s not different from a standard, serious conversion to Catholicism by someone who was already a solid Protestant. I’m answering as I read, and I already wrote above: “They convert because they believe the doctrines to be true, . . .”

[S]ome converts already had a background in liturgical churches (Lutheran, Anglican, Episcopalian). It comes as no surprise when they convert to Catholicism since their religious background predisposed them in that direction. [p. 248]

I was as unliturgical and low-church as one could be. It wasn’t about going where I felt comfortable, but following truth where I thought it led, regardless of “touchy-feely / oh-so-familiar” feelings.

On a related note, several converts had a background that was irreligious or nominally religious or nominally Protestant. Once again, it comes as no surprise that their background makes them susceptible to Catholicism inasmuch as they never had a strong, intellectually well-informed evangelical standard of comparison. [p. 248]

In my case, the churches I attended were intellectually sound (the pastor who married us had a doctorate in education), with a love of apologetics, such as from C. S. Lewis and Francis Schaeffer and Walter Martin, and the notion that Jesus was Lord of all of life. I did street witnessing at the Ann Arbor Art Fair (University of Michigan) for ten years, all through the 80s. One can’t succeed in doing that at all — without making a total fool of oneself — if one is anti-intellectual. It’s one of the hotbeds of radical secularism and left-wing politics in the country: and my parish now is located there.

But Hays still tried to lie about my background, as if it were anti-intellectual (“he had a rather brief and superficial experience with Evangelicalism [13 years!]—reading popularizers and attending emotive, anti-intellectual churches. . . . a shallow brand of Evangelicalism”: 9-9-06).

Bishop James White tried to pull the same schtick in December 2004, and described me as “one who has given very little evidence, in fact, of having done a lot of serious reading in better non-Catholic literature to begin with” (see the books I had actually read as a Protestant). I had been a Protestant apologist, for heaven’s sake, and did anti-cult research (still posted on my blog) and outreach in the early 80s. I did a radio show, teaching about Jehovah’s Witnesses on the big evangelical station in Detroit in 1989. That’s “thinking” stuff. People like Hays simply can’t believe that anyone at all intelligent or well-read or knowledgeable in Christianity could possibly become a Catholic. So we see him perpetually rationalizing away the reasons for such conversions. But he failed. E for effort and also for performance . . .

I use myself as an example because I know my own conversion story very well. But my overall point is that, if he can twist and distort my story that much, surely he did so with many others, too. My conversion to Catholicism was built upon the many true elements of Protestantism, that had taught me so much, and for which I am very grateful.

The gingerbread house-part 3

What’s so great about infallibility, anyway? You don’t have to be infallible to be right. We hold many fallible but true beliefs. [p. 253]

What’s great about it is that it allows for certainty that one is believing in truth. The Bible (especially Paul) is very big on truth. The word “truth” appears 103 times in the NT in RSV. “Assured[ly]” appears three times, “may know” sixteen times, “confident[ly]” six times, “knowledge” 48 times, “wise” 36 times, and “wisdom” 51 times. Infallibility is the same sort of thing. Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would “guide” us “into all the truth” (Jn 16:13), and Paul taught that the Church was “the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15). The apostles and elders at the Jerusalem council said that their decision “seemed good to the Holy Spirit” (Acts 15:28). For a more linguistically equivalent assertion of infallibility, we see a passage like this one:

2 Corinthians 13:5-6 Examine yourselves, to see whether you are holding to your faith. Test yourselves. Do you not realize that Jesus Christ is in you? — unless indeed you fail to meet the test! [6] I hope you will find out that we have not failed.

God likes His followers being certain, assured, confident, knowledgeable, wise, and adhering to infallible doctrinal proclamations, such as are present in Catholicism. He doesn’t like the (sought after, gloried in!) uncertainty, doctrinal chaos and indifferentism, and theological relativism that is so pervasive in Protestantism.

The gingerbread house-part 4

“The Church” didn’t compile the Bible. [p. 258]

Yeah, we know. It ratified or sanctioned or “authorized” it by her authority, so that the issue would henceforth be settled. More of that dreaded infallibility and certainty . . .

The gingerbread house-part 6

The church can be indefectible even though denominations are defectible, because the church is instantiated in different denominations at different times and places. When they outlive their usefulness, the church is then instantiated in newer denominations. [p. 261]

And where is this novel notion found in the Bible? Sectarianism and division are everywhere and always condemned in the NT.

[Chapter 6: Development of Doctrine]

No hard feelings, right?

For centuries, grieving parents were told that unbaptized babies went to Limbo rather than heaven. While that’s better than hell, it also means the parents will be permanently separated from their deceased children. Even if the parents are ultimately saved, they occupy a different place than their children. [p. 266]

Rather, Rome came down firmly on both sides of the issue at different times. [p. 268]

Limbo was never established doctrine. See:

Has Limbo Been Relegated to Limbo?: It Never Was Definitive Teaching [12-28-07]

Jay Dyer: Intellectual Limbo Re Catholic Belief in Limbo (with Dr. Robert Fastiggi) [7-24-20]

Cardinal Müller on Catholicism and Protestantism

Cardinal Müller represents the conservative, intellectual wing of the hierarchy. [p. 269]

In other words, he is simply an orthodox Catholic. It’s nice to see Hays finally acknowledge that there is a human being who is not a flaming liberal dissident (in his mind) as part of the “hierarchy.” But any of us orthodox apologists are just deluded dopes supposedly out of touch with the “actual” Catholic Church. Hays disagreed with Cardinal Müller’s statement: “The visible Church is the concretization of the Word of God’s incarnate presence in Jesus Christ” by replying, “It is in Catholic ecclesiology, but not in NT ecclesiology.” Oh yes it is. I dealt with this in reply #18:

1 Corinthians 12:27 Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it.

Acts 8:3; 9:1, 4-5  But Saul was ravaging the church, and entering house after house, he dragged off men and women and committed them to prison. . . . Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord. . . . And he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” And he said, “Who are you, Lord?” And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting”;

Rome claims the ability to bypass transparent, responsible methods of exegesis and substitutes the sheer ecclesiastical authority to posit the meaning. [p. 274]

No she doesn’t. There are only seven to nine Bible passages that the Catholic Church has definitively and finally interpreted See: The Freedom of the Catholic Biblical Exegete / Interpreter + Bible Passages that the Church has Definitively Interpreted [9-14-03]. Surely, any Calvinist has at least that many passages that they think prove their beloved TULIP false doctrine, and which in their minds could have no other possible interpretation.

For example, all Calvinists seem to think that Romans 9 is an unanswerable, unquestionable confirmation of their novel doctrines on double predestination (I saw this “confidence” exhibited just last week online). It’s not, as I showed: Romans 9: Plausible Non-Calvinist Interpretation [4-22-10]. But my main present point is that it’s not only Catholics who say “you can’t interpret verses a, b, c, other than as x” (in the Catholic case, for only 7-9 passages) Protestants do it, too. So why wrangle about things that are a wash?

The classic Protestant position isn’t salvation by faith alone but justification by faith alone and salvation by grace alone. [p. 278]

John Calvin’s pretty “classic” and he wrote about one of Protestantism’s favorite passages (Ephesians 2:8-9):

For by grace are ye saved. This is an inference from the former statements. Having treated of election and of effectual calling, he arrives at this general conclusion, that they had obtained salvation by faith alone. First, he asserts, that the salvation of the Ephesians was entirely the work, the gracious work of God. But then they had obtained this grace by faith. On one side, we must look at God; and, on the other, at man. God declares, that he owes us nothing; so that salvation is not a reward or recompense, but unmixed grace. The next question is, in what way do men receive that salvation which is offered to them by the hand of God? The answer is, by faith; . . .

When, on the part of man, the act of receiving salvation is made to consist in faith alone, all other means, on which men are accustomed to rely, are discarded. (Commentary on Ephesians 2:8–10; my italics)

St. John Cardinal Newman

Set your “lie meters.” They will be going crazy, for sure . . .

Newman resembles Luther inasmuch as both developed one-man belief-systems to resolve their personal religious quest. [p. 280]

This is sheer nonsense: ignorant as it can be. Newman was in complete accord with the tradition of Catholicism, and even his thesis on development that Hays relentlessly lies about and mischaracterizes, was directly derived from St. Vincent of Lerins in the 5th century. Luther, on the other hand, was a revolutionary, who had already rejected at least fifty Catholic beliefs and traditions and practices by 1520, before he was excommunicated.

The theory of development was necessitated by the increasing strain between the appeal to tradition and innovations in Catholic theology. Innovations that lacked a documentable pedigree in primitive tradition. [p. 280]

This is garbage, too, and I have refuted it again and again. See, in particular, my editing of replies to the virulently anti-Catholic and anti-Newman Anglican anti-Catholic George Salmon, and my own replies to Salmon’s anti-Newman damnable lies.

The theory of development solved one problem by creating another problem. It severed Catholic theology from any traditional moorings. Catholic theology is now adrift. It has no fixed center or boundaries. Catholic theology is now the theology of whoever the current pope happens to be. Like a chameleon, Catholic theology changes colors to match the shade of the current pope. [p. 280]

In Hays’ vain and highly fanciful imagination, development of doctrine is supposedly equivalent to evolution of dogmas. He seems constitutionally unable to comprehend how dead wrong this is. The former is fully accepted by the Catholic Church and involves no essential change. The latter involves essential change into something different and is condemned by the Church. Now, if indeed, Newman’s development was so supposedly radical and novel, how is it that the pope most known for being traditional and anti-modernist, Pope St. Pius X, was such a big advocate of it?

It so happens that an Irish bishop defended Newman from the false charges that he was a modernist and a liberal, and that his theory of development was no different than modernist “evolution of dogma” which Pope St. Pius X had condemned (and that he was condemned by his encyclical Pascendi). The document’s title is: Cardinal Newman and the Encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis, and it was written by Edward Thomas O’Dwyer, Bishop of Limerick (1908). Here is an excerpt:

(3) With regard to the theory of the development of Christian Doctrine, two questions entirely distinct from one another have to be considered in relation to Newman: (a) is his theory admissible according to the principles of Catholic Theology, and (b) is it covered, or touched in any wise, by the condemnations of the recent Encyclical.

The first of these questions I leave on one side now, venturing merely to express, with all submission, my personal opinion, little as it is worth, that in its broad outlines it is thoroughly sound and orthodox, and most serviceable for the interpretation of the facts of the history of dogma.

As to the second, I cannot see how there can be room for doubt. Newman’s whole doctrine was not only different from that of the Modernists, but so contrary to it in essence and fundamental principle, that I cannot conceive how, by any implication, it could be involved in their condemnation. Nothing less than an explicit statement by the supreme authority of the Holy See would convince me to the contrary. I see no common ground in both systems. The word development is the only thing which they hold in common. They do not mean the same thing by Christianity, by dogma, by religion, by Church. They do not start from the same first principles, and consequently they are as separate as the poles.

Pope St. Pius X himself – in the same year: 1908 (on 10 March) – wrote a letter to Bishop O’Dwyer, thoroughly approving of his pamphlet. Here are some excerpts:

We hereby inform you that your essay, in which you show that the writings of Cardinal Newman, far from being in disagreement with Our Encyclical Letter Pascendi, are very much in harmony with it, . . . Moreover, as far as that matter is concerned, his way of thinking has been expressed in very different ways, both in the spoken word and in his published writings, and the author himself, on his admission into the Catholic Church, forwarded all his writings to the authority of the same Church so that any corrections might be made, if judged appropriate. Regarding the large number of books of great importance and influence which he wrote as a Catholic, it is hardly necessary to exonerate them from any connection with this present heresy. . . . what the Modernists do is to falsely and deceitfully take those words out of the whole context of what he meant to say and twist them to suit their own meaning. We therefore congratulate you for having, through your knowledge of all his writings, brilliantly vindicated the memory of this eminently upright and wise man from injustice: . . . Would that they should follow Newman the author faithfully by studying his books without, to be sure, being addicted to their own prejudices, and let them not with wicked cunning conjure anything up from them or declare that their own opinions are confirmed in them; but instead let them understand his pure and whole principles, his lessons and inspiration which they contain. They will learn many excellent things from such a great teacher: in the first place, to regard the Magisterium of the Church as sacred, to defend the doctrine handed down inviolately by the Fathers and, what is of highest importance to the safeguarding of Catholic truth, to follow and obey the Successor of St. Peter with the greatest faith. [link]

When I dropped this bombshell on David T. King: without question the loudest-mouthed, most arrogant and obnoxious, rude anti-Catholic I’ve ever met, he never again tried to reply to me (and it has remained that way for almost twenty years now). For more details, see: Was Cardinal Newman a Modernist?: Pope St. Pius X vs. Anti-Catholic Polemicist David T. King (Development, not Evolution of Doctrine) [1-20-04].

Hays has created a wholly fictional, imaginary landscape whereby Pope St. Pius X supposedly opposed Newman’s development of doctrine and regarded him as a modernist. That couldn’t be any more opposed to the truth than it is, as I just documented. If Hays had read this paper of mine in 2004, he could have never argued anything this stupid and removed from reality. David T. King sure learned to cease spouting his ignorant nonsense about Cardinal Newman. “Once bitten, twice shy” . . .

Rome’s clouded crystal ball

A Catholic might object that I’m burning a straw man. Sure, Catholic doctrine changes. No one disputes that. Some changes represent a development of doctrine. In other cases, the tradition wasn’t infallible to begin with. I’m aware of those caveats. [p. 286]

Good. A ray of hope and some desperately needed nuance . . .

***

***

Photo credit: The Whore of Babylon (workshop of Lucas Cranach): colorized illustration from Martin Luther’s 1534 translation of the Bible [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: The late Steve Hays was a Calvinist and anti-Catholic writer and apologist. This is one of my many critiques of Hays’ “Catholicism”: a 695-page self-published volume.