2023-05-22T08:55:00-04:00

Visible Church; Eucharist in Acts 2:42; Ever-Changing Catholicism?

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, knowing full well my history of being condemned and vilified by other anti-Catholics (and his buddies) like James White, Eric Svendsen, and James Swan, 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. . . . The term “apostasy” carries with it a heavy presumption that the apostate is a hell-bound reprobate. I think it’s unwarranted to assume that all Catholics or converts to Catholicism are damned.

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 3: Competing Paradigms]

Finding the church

Catholic converts and apologists like Bryan Cross harp on “the visible church”. Where do you find the visible church? [p. 94]

In the Bible:

Visible, Hierarchical, Apostolic Church [1996]

1 Timothy 3:15: Sola Scriptura or Visible Church Authority? [10-2-07]

Debunking the Mythical Invisible Church [9-14-15]

Is the One True Church a Visible or Invisible Entity? [National Catholic Register, 9-12-18]

Protestants don’t have a visible church. [p. 94]

Then that is one of many ways in which they are unbiblical. But it’s incorrect for Hays to make such a blanket statement about all Protestants. Anglicans believe in a visible Church. Even Hays’ master John Calvin casually assumed that it existed:

How we are to judge the church visible, which falls within our knowledge, is, I believe, already evident from the above discussion. For we have said that Holy Scripture speaks of the church in two ways. Sometimes by the term “church” it means that which is actually in God’s presence, into which no persons are received but those who are children of God by grace of adoption and true members of Christ by sanctification of the Holy Spirit. Then, indeed, the church includes not only the saints presently living on earth, but all the elect from the beginning of the world. Often, however, the name “church” designates the whole multitude of men spread over the earth who profess to worship one God and Christ. By baptism we are initiated into faith in him; by partaking in the Lord’s Supper we attest our unity in true doctrine and love; in the Word of the Lord we have agreement, and for the preaching of the Word the ministry instituted by Christ is preserved. In this church are mingled many hypocrites who have nothing of Christ but the name and outward appearance. There are very many ambitious, greedy, envious persons, evil speakers, and some of quite unclean life. (Institutes of the Christian Religion [Philadelphia, 1960], Book IV, Chapter 1, Section 7: “Invisible and Visible Church”; italics my own)

Here’s another definition of the church:

They devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles, to fellowship, to the breaking of bread, and prayer (Acts 2:42).

That’s a nifty compact definition. A functional definition. . . .

This is where you find “the church”. You find the church whenever and whenever you find groups of Christians who exemplify Acts 2:42, both inside and outside of church. [p. 94]

It’s not a definition of the Church at all. Rather, it’s a description of how one group of the earliest Christians (Acts 11:26) — in Jerusalem — acted. If I say, “these athletes warmed up by throwing the ball around, kept in physical shape, sat on the bench, ran around the bases, hit a pitched ball with a bat, and caught balls in the air,” that’s a description of baseball players: not the definition of baseball itself.

If Hays wants to argue in this fashion, I could just as well cite the actions of Christians in the seven churches of Revelation, too: “you have abandoned the love you had at first” (Rev 2:4; of the church in Ephesus); “you are dead” (Rev 3:1; of the church in Sardis); “you are lukewarm, . . . wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked” (Rev 3:16-17; of the church in Laodicea).

Or how about the Galatian Christians, whom Paul calls his “brethren” in “the churches of Galatia” (Gal 1:2)? He also said that they were “quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel” (Gal 1:6), and “Are you so foolish? Having begun with the Spirit, are you now ending with the flesh?” (3:3), and “now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and beggarly elemental spirits, whose slaves you want to be once more?” (4:9), and “I am afraid I have labored over you in vain” (4:11).

All of these people from four local churches are regarded in Scripture (and by Paul) as Christians and brothers and sisters in Christ, yet this is how they acted. Even Paul described himself — “the foremost of sinners” (1 Tim 1:15) — as follows:

Romans 7:15, 19, 23-24 I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. . . . [19] For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do. . . . [23] but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin which dwells in my members. [24] Wretched man that I am! . . .

Therefore, it follows that we can’t define the church by how believers act, because it’s unbiblical. If we wanted to reason like Steve, it would follow that it’s just as biblical to define a Christian as “dead” or “lukewarm” or “wretched” or one who is “turning to a different gospel” than it is to describe them as Luke did in Acts 2:42. And that’s because the Church, which is visible, according to Holy Scripture, has wheat and weeds (or tares), as Jesus taught (Mt 13:24-30).

Does “breaking of bread” (cf. v46-47) allude to the eucharist or ordinary communal Christian meals? False dichotomy inasmuch as that formal distinction didn’t exist at the time. The eucharist was incorporated into common meals (cf. 1 Cor 10-11). [p. 94]

Many classic Protestant commentators, contrary to Hays, think it is referring to the Eucharist here (and it is the most prevalent historical view):

Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers: And in breaking of bread, and in prayers.—(3) St. Luke uses the phrase, we must remember, in the sense which, when he wrote, it had acquired in St. Paul’s hands. It can have no meaning less solemn than the commemorative “breaking of bread,” of 1 Corinthians 10:16. From the very first what was afterwards known as the Lord’s Supper (see Note on 1 Corinthians 11:20) took its place with baptism as a permanent universal element in the Church’s life. At first, it would seem, the evening meal of every day was such a supper. Afterwards the two elements that had then been united were developed separately, the social into the Agapœ, or Feasts of Love (Jude 1:12, and—though here there is a various-reading—2 Peter 2:13), the other into the Communion, or Eucharistic Sacrifice.

Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible: and in breaking of bread; or “of the eucharist”: as the Syriac version renders it, which was [the] usual name with the ancients for the Lord’s supper; and which seems to be intended here, and not eating common bread, or a common meal; seeing it is here mentioned with religious exercises: and though the Jews used to begin their meals with breaking of bread, yet the whole repast, or meal, is never by them called by that name . . .

Expositor’s Greek Testament: no interpretation is satisfactory which forgets . . . that the author of Acts had behind him Pauline language and doctrine, and that we are justified in adducing the language of St. Paul in order to explain the words before us, cf. 1 Corinthians 10:16; 1 Corinthians 11:24, Acts 20:7 . . . But if we admit this, we cannot consistently explain the expression of a mere common meal. It may be true that every such meal in the early days of the Church’s first love had a religious significance, that it became a type and evidence of the kingdom of God amongst the believers, but St. Paul’s habitual reference of the words before us to the Lord’s Supper leads us to see in them here a reference to the commemoration of the Lord’s death, although we may admit that it is altogether indisputable that this commemoration at first followed a common meal.

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges: The earliest title of the Holy Communion and that by which it is mostly spoken of in Scripture. (See Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 10:16, &c.)

Pulpit Commentary: in the Holy Eucharist (see Matthew 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19; Luke 24:30; 1 Corinthians 11:24; 1 Corinthians 10:16; Acts 20:7).

Vincent’s Word Studies: Used by Luke only, and only in the phrase breaking of bread. The kindred verb κλάζω or κλάω, to break, occurs often, but, like the noun, only of breaking bread. Hence used to designate the celebration of the Lord’s Supper.

Alford’s Greek Testament Critical Exegetical Commentary: The interpretation of ἡ κλ. τ. ἄρτ. [here] as the celebration of the Lord’s Supper has been, both in ancient and modern times, the prevalent one. Chrysostom himself, in his 27th Hom. on 1 Cor., p. 422, interprets it, or at all events τῇ κοινωνίᾳ and it together, of the Holy Communion.

Calvin’s Commentaries: my reason why I would rather have breaking of bread to be understood of the Lord’s Supper in this place is this, because Luke doth reckon up those things wherein the public estate of the Church is contained. Yea, he expresseth in this place four marks whereby the true and natural face of the Church may be judged.

Rome’s house of cards

Catholicism, since about the time of Pius XII, has been undergoing drastic change–a trend accelerated by Pope Francis. So it’s unclear, after the dust settles, what Catholicism still represents. I pity someone attempting to write an introduction to the Catholic faith under the pontificate of Francis. That may be out of date before the ink is dry. Catholics must consult the daily newspaper to know what they’re still supposed to believe. [p. 95]

In fact, there have been no changes in doctrine or dogma at all. There are a good number of confused and undereducated Catholics flapping their mouths about supposed change in the Church or with Pope Francis, but they are wrong, and they can’t document that anything has actually changed. A Catholic doesn’t find the doctrines and beliefs of his or her Church by reading newspapers. They find it, rather, in the Catechism, the ecumenical councils, papal encyclicals and other utterances, and Denzinger’s Enchiridion (see the latest 2012 edition): the standard reference source for what the Catholic Church believes.

If someone thinks that some Catholic doctrine has changed, they are welcome to try to prove it by consulting these sources. I can save them the trouble. As a credentialed full-time Catholic apologist for 21 years (with several Imprimaturs, etc.), I can attest that no doctrine has changed or been thrown out. If someone thinks otherwise, they need to prove it “from the books”; not merely assert it with no proof at all (as Hays habitually does). He’s firing blanks. Much ado about nothing. If he actually could “produce the goods” and nail down his case, then he certainly would have. The fact that he doesn’t even attempt to do so is a roundabout concession that he has nothing and so can only indulge in empty rhetoric.

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,200+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-one books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation InformationThanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***

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.

2023-05-21T15:05:14-04:00

Conversion Paradigms; Dispensers of Sacraments; Salvation Outside the Church; Catholicism: Bible Totally Inerrant

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, knowing full well my history of being condemned and vilified by other anti-Catholics (and his buddies) like James White, Eric Svendsen, and James Swan, 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. . . . The term “apostasy” carries with it a heavy presumption that the apostate is a hell-bound reprobate. I think it’s unwarranted to assume that all Catholics or converts to Catholicism are damned.

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 3: Competing Paradigms]

Paradigm shift

Converting from the Protestant faith to the Catholic faith, or vice versa, involves a paradigm-shift. I’m defining a theological paradigm as a comprehensive interpretive grid. A way of viewing, integrating, and simplifying a mass of issues by reference to a particular conceptual scheme. [p. 90]

Exactly right.

One impediment which prevents some Catholics from conversion is that they are used to filtering everything through their theological paradigm, and they can’t imagine an alternative. They don’t know the explanatory power of a Protestant paradigm. They don’t know how it answers the same questions. They don’t think it can answer the same questions. [p. 90]

One impediment which prevents some Protestants from conversion to Catholicism is that they are used to filtering everything through their theological paradigm, and they can’t imagine an alternative. They don’t know the explanatory power of a Catholic paradigm. They don’t know how it answers the same questions. They don’t think it can answer the same questions.

In addition, there’s no one Catholic paradigm. [p. 90]

This is where Hays is wrong. He never understood this. There is one Catholic paradigm in terms of doctrine. It’s called “the magisterium.” This is what infallibility is about. In practice, individual Catholics comply to more or less degrees (I completely comply, as all Catholics should, according to the nature of the system). It’s true of all religious groups that there are members of varying degrees of knowledge, moral conformity, commitment, and consistency. Hypocrites, nominal folks, and theological ignoramuses can always be found (including, sadly, massive numbers of these in Catholic circles). But to compare system to system, the “books” and confessions and creeds must be consulted. It’s the only honest, objective way to go about that.

So I’ll be selective and generalize. My analysis deliberately oversimplifies some issues, . . . [p. 90]

This sums up the general flaw and shortcoming seen in virtually all of Hays’ anti-Catholic efforts. He doesn’t analyze deeply enough: as suggested in visual terms by the constant annoying “lecture notes” / “outline” format of his writings. No one was ever more in need of an editor.

Sometimes we need to see the forest rather than the trees. [p. 90]

Sometimes we need to see the trees — and the DNA of the trees — rather than the forest.

We can revisit the trees at a later date. [p. 90]

But it seems that Hays rarely if ever got to that. This make his analyses fundamentally superficial and inadequate. He was capable of much better, so it seems to have been a problem of the will.

It’s natural for Catholics to use their paradigm as the standard of comparison. They contrast what they deem to be the theoretical advantages of their paradigm with what they deem to be the theoretical disadvantages of the Protestant alternative. [p. 90]

It’s natural for Protestants to use their paradigm as the standard of comparison. They contrast what they deem to be the theoretical advantages of their paradigm with what they deem to be the theoretical disadvantages of the Catholic alternative.

But at one level that begs the question, for unless your theological paradigm is true, it is illegitimate to use it as a yardstick to measure the competition. Even if one paradigm has theoretical advantages compared to another, that’s not the same thing as having factual advantages. [p. 90]

I agree. That’s why I think the “standard of comparison” ought to be the scriptural data and a determination of the consensus teaching of the Church fathers: Bible and history. Now, how we can best compare the two is to have debates: let the outside observer see how a Protestant apologist defends his view from Scripture and history and how a Catholic apologist defends his view from Scripture and history, and then how they counter-reply to each other. This seems to me the fairest and most intelligent way to go about it. Read and compare; determine which view is more in accord with the Bible and Church history, and read from each side’s passionate advocates, not one side with a biased summary of the other. That won’t do.  . . . And of course I offer this very thing on my blog, for anyone who is willing to read the dialogues.

The Catholic priesthood has a monopoly on the sacraments. Valid sacraments depend on validly ordained priests, which in turn depends on apostolic succession. [p. 91]

This is largely true, but not wholly. Catholic deacons can baptize, and indeed, anyone (who has the right intention and uses a trinitarian formula) can baptize in emergency situations. Deacons can also preside over Catholic wedding ceremonies. And they can because that sacrament doesn’t flow from a priest or a deacon. The bride and groom confer the sacrament of matrimony upon each other. Catholics also accept trinitarian baptism among Protestants as a true, regenerative sacrament, and marriage between two lifelong Protestants as sacramental. Hays didn’t do his homework very well regarding this question.

To be saved, you must be a communicant member of the Roman Catholic church. [p. 91]

This is untrue as a blanket statement:

[T]he “pagan” Cornelius who, the Acts tell us, was “an upright and God-fearing man” even before baptism. Gradually, therefore, as it became clear that there were “God-fearing” people outside the Christian fold, and that some were deprived of their Catholic heritage without fault on their part, the parallel Tradition arose of considering such people open to salvation, although they were not professed Catholics or even necessarily baptized.
Ambrose and Augustine paved the way for making these distinctions. By the twelfth century, it was widely assumed that a person can be saved if some “invincible obstacle stands in the way” of his baptism and entrance into the Church. Thomas Aquinas restated the constant teaching about the general necessity of the Church. But he also conceded that a person may be saved extra sacramentally by a baptism of desire and therefore without actual membership by reason of his at least implicit desire to belong to the Church. (John A. Hardon, S.J., The Catholic Catechism [Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Co., 1975], 234-236)
The Catechism of the Catholic Church concurs:
818 “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”
*
819 “Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth” are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.” Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.” [italics and bolding are my own]
There are certain strands of Catholic tradition that soften that paradigm, viz. invincible ignorance, implicit faith, Limbo. Those stand in tension with the austere inner logic of the primary paradigm. [p. 91]
*
They do not “stand in tension.” They “do” only granting beforehand the “either/or” false dichotomy mentality of many Protestants. Fr. Hardon (ibid.) wrote:
It would be inaccurate, however, to look upon these two traditions as in opposition. They represent the single mystery of the Church as universal sacrament of salvation, which the Church’s magisterium has explained in such a way that what seems to be a contradiction is really a paradox.
Fr. William G. Most added:
A diligent search in the Fathers shows a similar situation in regard to “no salvation outside the Church.” We find again two sets of assertions, very often by the same writers. One group of statements speaks very strongly, and almost stringently, about the need of membership; the other group softens this position by taking a remarkably broad view of what membership consists in. . . .
*
We found restrictive texts in Hermas, St. Justin, St. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, St. Cyprian, Lactantius, St. Augustine, St. Cyril of Alexandria, and St. Fulgentius. There are also five Magisterium texts that seem restrictive. We found broad texts much more widely. Only three of the above ten Fathers who have restrictive texts lack broad texts: St. Cyprian, Lactantius, and
St. Fulgentius. All others, plus many more, do have them.Broad texts are found in: First Clement, St. Justin, Hermas, Second Clement, St. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Hegemonius, Arnobius, Eusebius of Caesarea, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, St. John Chrysostom, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Prosper, St. Nilus, St. Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret, St. Leo the Great, St. Gregory the Great, Primasius, and St. John Damascene.(“Is There Salvation Outside the Church?”)
The Bible is only infallible in matters concerning salvation. [p. 92]
*
This is an inaccurate understanding of the Catholic position:
For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily, as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. . . . It follows that those who maintain that an error is possible in any genuine passage of the sacred writings either pervert the Catholic notion of inspiration or make God the author of such error (Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus [1893], 20-21)
Pope St. Pius X in his 1907 Lamentabili Sane [11] condemned the proposition “Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error.”
*
Pope Benedict XV re-affirmed Pope Leo XIII’s teaching in his own encyclical Spiritus Paraclitus [18] in 1920.
*
Ven. Pope Pius XII’s 1943 encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu also agreed: “For as the substantial Word of God became like to men in all things, except sin, so the words of God, expressed in human language, are made like to human speech in every respect, except error” [37]. [cf. his encyclical, Humani Generis (1950), section 22]
*
I remember reading The Battle for the Bible (1977) by Protestant scholar Harold Lindsell, back in the day (probably early 80s) when I was a fervent evangelical, and his making the point in the book that the Catholic Church had a doctrine of the inspiration and infallibility of Scripture — including after Vatican II, which changed no doctrines — that was as “high” as any Protestant view (it really struck me at the time, and I was delighted to learn of it).
*
Catholics must rely on fallible reason to arrive at their belief in Rome or defend it. Although they believe that Rome is infallible, that’s a fallible
belief in the infallibility of their denomination. A bottom-up process rather than a top-down process. Their conclusion regarding Catholicism is only as good as the fallible reasoning they use to reach that conclusion. Their conclusion is not infallible. They can’t escape the vicissitudes of errable judgment. The destination can’t rise higher than the process. Appeal to infallibility to retroactively validate their faith is illusory. [p. 92]
*
This is a fatally flawed argument known (at least in some Protestant circles) as the “infallibility regress.” I have refuted it several times:
*

Dialogue on the Logic of Catholic Infallible Authority [6-4-96]

Church Authority & Certainty (The “Infallibility Regress”) [July 2000; some revisions on 12-8-11]

Ecclesiological Certainty (?) & the “Infallibility Regress” [5-22-03 and 10-7-08]

Does Church Infallibility Require Infallible Catholics? [6-8-10]

“How Can we Find a List of Infallible Catholic Doctrines?” [12-15-18]

The Protestant paradigm doesn’t rely on historical continuity. It doesn’t depend on a chain of custody. So long as people have access to revealed truth, the Spirit can start or restart the church at any time and any place. [p. 93]

Note the almost self-evident absurdity of this statement. I wish I had a dime for every time a Protestant apologist claimed that Protestants weren’t “ahistorical.” They resent any indication to the contrary. Then we see a ludicrous expression like this one, by an influential and prolific Calvinist apologist. I’ve been contending for over thirty years that the Protestant Revolution (not “Reformation”) was just that: an introduction of novelties; disconnected from Church history in many (not all) ways, and not able to be confirmed by a consensus of the Church fathers. Thanks for the confirmation, Steve! The true Church is indefectible, and as such, it’s nonsensical to talk as if it “can start or restart . . . at any time and any place.”

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,200+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-one books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation InformationThanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***

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.

2023-05-18T14:34:49-04:00

Rule of Faith; Catholic Mariology 

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, knowing full well my history of being condemned and vilified by other anti-Catholics (and his buddies) like James White, Eric Svendsen, and James Swan, 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. . . . The term “apostasy” carries with it a heavy presumption that the apostate is a hell-bound reprobate. I think it’s unwarranted to assume that all Catholics or converts to Catholicism are damned.

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 2: Exposition]

Catholicism in the dock, part 2

Why . . .  even bother with the text of Scripture when the Catholic distinctive[s] derive, not from Scripture, but from church fathers, church councils, &c? Scripture doesn’t contain the specific claims of developed Catholic theology. [p. 74]

He’s assuming what he needs to prove: “begging the question” or petitio principii fallacy.  On the other hand, I deny his false premise: why does he think everything has to come from Scripture, or perhaps (qualifying a bit) explicitly therefrom? Where in the Bible does it teach that this is a requirement? If it’s not taught in Scripture, it’s merely a Protestant extrabiblical tradition. And if that is the case, by Protestant criteria it can’t be infallible; therefore no one is bound to accept it. But Hays is freed from all of this consideration of reason. He simply accepts with blind faith and a complete arbitrariness the notion that “every Christian truth must be laid out in the Bible.”

It’s also a truism that Scripture doesn’t lay out claims of a theology that has undergone up to 1950 years of development. How could it? It can, however, contain the more primitive versions and the essence of doctrines that later came to be more or less fully understood. Even the Holy Trinity and divinity of Jesus, which are very well expressed in the Bible, nevertheless took 500 years to fully develop (as most Protestant Church historians would agree).

That’s why he must supplement the sacred text with extrabiblical texts that do. [p. 74]

Just as Protestants accept many extrabiblical tenets and doctrines. I just explained one of them above. Sola Scriptura, sola fide, and the canon of the New Testament are other ones.

But in that event it’s the extrabiblical texts that actually teach Catholic distinctive. [p. 74]

In my 33 years of Catholic apologetics, I have been able to find, fairly easily, biblical justification for every single Catholic doctrine. It’s one of the major themes of my apostolate, and probably what I am most known for. In those same 33 years, I have yet to see biblical justification for Sola Scriptura and sola fide: the two “pillars” of the so-called Protestant Reformation. In those instances, Protestants simply accept an unbiblical tradition and labor under the illusion that they are taught in the Bible (“somewhere,” as it were). The usual falsehoods employed are equating material and formal sufficiency of the Bible, and equating salvation by grace alone with salvation by faith alone. Lately, I’ve noticed Protestant apologists refreshingly conceding that sola Scriptura is not taught in the Bible itself:

I don’t think the Bible directly, explicitly teaches sola scriptura. Rather, I think sola scriptura is an implication of Biblical teaching. . . . I don’t think 2 Timothy 3:15-17 is saying that Timothy or anybody else at that time should have abided by sola scriptura. Rather, when we combine 2 Timothy 3 with what other sources tell us about scripture and what we know about other factors involved (e.g., ecclesiology), we arrive at the conclusion of sola scriptura.” (Jason Engwer, “How To Argue For Sola Scriptura,” 1-10-18)

I think the question that we have is: do we have to find a particular Scripture that says Scripture is the only authority? And I just don’t think we have to. We don’t. There’s nothing in — you can’t find — in any of Paul’s letters, for example, . . . “by the way, Scripture is the only authority and traditions are not an authority and there is no magisterium that is given some kind of infallible authority to pass on infallible teachings.” (Jordan Cooper, “A Defense of Sola Scriptura, 3-12-19; from 1:39 to 2:14 on the video)

At best, the biblical texts are merely consistent with subsequent developments, without affirming or entailing subsequent developments. [p. 74]

That’s perfectly consistent with the nature of development of doctrine. Once again, Hays shows that he doesn’t understand the basic definition of development of doctrine. He thinks it is evolution of dogma: a false belief that the Catholic Church has roundly condemned.

But that means they’re consistent with disaffirming subsequent developments. They’re consistent with more than one theological trajectory. [p. 74]

Theoretically, before the fact, yes. But in actuality, after the fact and in retrospect, no.

There’s a sense in which you could say Mary is the new Eve. By the same token, there’s a sense in which you could say Noah’s wife is the new Eve. [p. 75]

I don’t see how. Noah’s wife didn’t say “yes” in a way that Mary’s “yes” reversed the “no” of Eve. There is simply no analogy there. Nor did Noah’s wife bear the incarnate God, which is the whole point of why Mary was greeted by an angel, who said, “Hail, full of grace” and informed Mary that she would bear God the Son. No one claims that Noah’s wife was sinless, either, which was “fitting” for the Mother of God the Son.

A sense in which Noah is the new Adam . . . [p. 75]

There is no such sense, seeing in this case that Holy Scripture itself calls Jesus Christ the “last Adam” (1 Cor 15:45; cf. the parallelism of 15:22). That’s not even deductive. It flat-out states it.

[T]hat illustrates the risks and limitations of these facile parallels. [p. 75]

His example of Noah as the second Adam certainly is quite “facile.” Even if it was an intended reductio ad absurdum, it was dumb ,because it completely overlooked the refuting passages of 1 Corinthians 15:22, 45. But the “new Eve” motif goes back to at least St. Irenaeus in the second century.

[Pious Catholics are intoxicated by the idea of Catholicism. Swept away by appealing ideas. (Appealing to them.) [p. 75]

As if zealous Protestants are not intoxicated with the “idea” of Protestantism? Well-known Protestant historian Alister McGrath wrote a book entitled, Christianity’s Dangerous Idea: The Protestant Revolution (2007). The blurb on the Google Books page gushes: “The radical idea that individuals could interpret the Bible for themselves spawned a revolution that is still being played out on the world stage today.”

There’s nothing in the Gospels about Mary interceding for sinners. [p. 76]

She intervened, on behalf of the hosts of the wedding reception, for Jesus to miraculously make wine. That’s fairly analogous to intercession. Even Hays state on page 77, half-conceding this very point, that Mary’s intervention “precipitated a public miracle, thereby initiating his ministry, . . .”

Here’s we see the process of legendary embellishment right before our eyes. Notice that [the Catholic] argument [regarding Luke 1:28 and “full of grace” is explicitly dependent on the wording, not of the original text of Luke, but the Vulgate. He’s not even conscious of the problem when he departs from the Greek text to draw his inference from a nuance in the Latin translation that can’t be traced back to the text that Luke actually wrote. That’s not what it means in the Greek–or even the Latin. [p. 76]

I already dealt with this at considerable length in Reply #7 (Hays is dead wrong) but here’s a little more. I cited the linguistic scholars Blass and DeBrunner (Greek Grammar of the New Testament) [pp. 166, 175], and H. W. Smyth (Greek Grammar — Harvard Univ. Press, 1968) in footnote number 188 in my book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (2003, Sophia Institute Press, page 178). I wrote on the latter page: “It is permissible, on Greek grammatical and linguistic grounds [footnote], to paraphrase kecharitomene as completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace.” That’s based on Smyth describing kecharitomene as a perfect passive participle, that shows a “completed action with permanent result” and denotes continuance of a completed action (pp. 108-109, section 1852:b).

If you identify Mary as the referent in Rev 12 because she’s the biological mother of Jesus, then you can’t suddenly drop that principle and say she’s the metaphorical mother of Christians, or a symbol of the church. For if the depiction is metaphorical, then you can’t infer that the referent is the mother of Jesus because Mary is his biological mother. The interpretation needs to be consistently literal or consistently figurative on the same plane. The referents must operate on the same level of literality or figurality. If the woman is figuratively the Church, then the manchild can’t literally be Jesus. In this passage, Mary doesn’t personify the church. Rather, the church/Israel is personified by a woman. In the OT, Israel is personified as a mother in labor. [pp. 77-78]

There is no inviolable hermeneutical rule, let alone scriptural prohibition of possible multiple meanings or applications of prophetic-type biblical literature, as I have written about. I explained it to an atheist. I wouldn’t have thought it would be necessary to have to point this out to an educated Calvinist apologist. As for the exegesis of Revelation 12, I have dealt with it many times:

Virgin Mary: Woman of Revelation 12? [4-1-09]

Dialogue on the Woman of Revelation 12 (Mary?) [8-16-11]

Blessed Virgin Mary & Revelation 12: Debate with a Protestant [5-28-12]

Vs. James White #12: Mary the Woman of Revelation 12 [11-7-19]

The Queen Mother & the Bible (vs. James White) [10-8-21]

Although the passage alludes in part to Gen 3, the serpentine/dragonesque imagery also derives from passages in Isaiah and the Psalter regarding the Red Sea crossing (e.g. Ps 74:13-14; Isa 27:1). So that’s not just about Eve, but Israel and the Exodus. [p. 78]

No one denied that it did. It has multiple applications, like many — if not most — prophecies do.

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,200+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-one books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation InformationThanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***

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.

2023-05-18T11:37:22-04:00

Tradition & Authority; Bankruptcy of Sola Scriptura

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, knowing full well my history of being condemned and vilified by other anti-Catholics (and his buddies) like James White, Eric Svendsen, and James Swan, 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. . . . The term “apostasy” carries with it a heavy presumption that the apostate is a hell-bound reprobate. I think it’s unwarranted to assume that all Catholics or converts to Catholicism are damned.

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 2: Exposition]

Catholicism in the dock

The claim that critics of Catholicism can’t avoid referencing a tradition of their own is at odds with the common assertion that Protestants are guilty of proposing theological innovations. But a theological position can’t be simultaneously traditional and innovative. [p. 67]

Here Hays confuses “traditions of men”: which can start up at any time (i.e., be “new traditions”) and apostolic, patristic tradition, continuing through apostolic succession from 2000 years ago. Everyone has traditions of some sort. They are either openly acknowledged (that’s what Catholics do), utilized without knowledge and self-awareness that one is doing it (many Protestants who pretend that they just “go by the Bible,” etc.) or openly acknowledged, but erroneous (Protestant traditions that are false, or heretical / schismatic worldviews).

There’s a first time for everything. It’s quite possible for a theologian to make a break with the past. [p. 68]

Of course it is. But if it goes contrary to apostolic tradition or the Bible or magisterial Church teaching, it ought to be rejected. This is one of the major functions of the One True Church.

The question is whether tradition is regarded as intrinsically authoritative and unquestionable. Tradition as an argument from ecclesiastical authority, that isn’t subject to review. [p. 68]

Authoritative tradition is determined by a combination of serious historical analysis of Christian history and biblical teaching. When that is done, we maintain that Catholicism wins, hands-down, as the Guardian of apostolic tradition.

That’s quite different from tradition as an interpretation of Scripture that appeals to reason and evidence rather than authority. [p. 68]

It need not be a dichotomy. Catholic authority is built upon reason, evidence, and the Bible.

There are traditional interpretations in the sense of a tradition that starts out as an interpretation of Scripture, then becomes traditional, and something that starts out as a tradition, then casts about for prooftexts to retroactively validate a tradition that developed independently of Scripture. [p. 68]

Yes, the latter is an accurate description of both sola Scriptura and sola fide.

In addition, some traditional interpretations become dogma. The tradition is frozen in place and becomes the foundation for a theological skyscraper. But that’s different from a traditional interpretation that remains subject to scrutiny. Traditional interpretations that must prove themselves to each new Christian generation. Traditions that are responsive to logic and evidence. [p. 68]

Protestants have their own traditions, even of this sort, too. Does someone want to doubt that? Okay: go to a Calvinist and deny the five tenets of Calvinism (“TULIP”). See how far that gets you.  See if that entrenched 500-year-old theological tradition is “subject to scrutiny” and “responsive to logic and evidence.” So it works out exactly the same way. All Christians have “non-negotiable” elements. And it has to be that way because Christianity is a religious belief-system. Some things in any Christian system are regarded as unquestionably true. It’s only a matter of degree and which beliefs are placed in this category. But for Hays to act as if only Catholics have dogmas which no one can question is, at best, ultra-naive and blind to reality, and at worst, equivocation and sophistry.

Divine guidance is not continuous but occasional and unpredictable. There’s no oracle that answers all our questions. [p. 69]

It surely is continuous in some sense:

Matthew 28:20 . . . I am with you always, to the close of the age.

John 14:26  But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

John 16:13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth . . .

Acts 15:28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things:

Acts 16:3-4 Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him; . . . [4] As they went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem.

1 Corinthians 11:2 . . . maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

1 Timothy 3:15 . . . the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

Catholic apologists and theologians say the church is subordinate to Scripture rather than above it, but if, according to them, the Magisterium is the arbiter of what Scripture means, then Scripture means whatever the Magisterium says it means. So that puts the Magisterium above Scripture. Scripture can never act as an independent check on the Magisterium if the Magisterium is the definitive interpreter. [pp. 69-70]

What we say is that Church teaching, tradition, and Scripture are always harmonious in fact. They are a “three-legged stool” and it makes no sense to try to place one above the other (all three “legs” have to be the same length or else the stool is unstable and falls). Scripture is indeed unique in that it is God-breathed in a way that Church teaching and tradition are not; yet it still has to be interpreted. We believe that God set up a guiding, teaching Church, led by the Holy Spirit, that is led to infallibly teach, so that believers are not led astray into heresy and other false beliefs and doctrines. Infallibility is a gift from God, to preserve and protect His Church, which in fact provides true interpretations of the inspired, infallible, inerrant revelation of Holy Scripture.

Moreover, in Jn 14-16, Jesus didn’t promise the Spirit to “the Church”, much less the pope or the Roman Magisterium, but to the Eleven. This is a classic example of how Catholics read out of Scripture what they first read into Scripture. [p. 70]

They represent the Church, as its prototypes. When they got together as part of this Church in the council of Jerusalem (“The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter”: Acts 15:6), they showed that they were now leaders in the Church, not just atomistic individuals (which is the false Protestant tendency). The Holy Spirit then led these “apostles and [non-apostle] elders” (“it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us”: Acts 15:28) to make an authoritative pronouncement, binding on believers throughout Asia Minor (Turkey). Paul himself “delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem” (Acts 16:4).

That is the Spirit guiding the Church; it’s infallible, Spirit-led authority, in a way that is contrary to the fundamental principle of authority and rule of faith of Protestantism: sola Scriptura, which holds that no authority is infallible except Scripture; therefore, it follows the Jerusalem council could not have been, and we must deny that the Holy Spirit led it, as inspired Scripture states (Acts 15:28). The Church infallibly leads us to theological and spiritual truth because Paul told us so in inspired Scripture, in calling it “the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15).

Catholic appeal to Scripture is circular inasmuch as Scripture is only allowed to mean whatever meaning the Magisterium assigns to Scripture. [p. 70]

As explained, God sees to it that the two are in fact one and the same. It’s not circular if there is an equivalence, brought about by God’s supernatural guidance and protection.

But in that event, how do they establish the authority of the Magisterium in the first place? [p. 70]

From biblical teachings, which I have been outlining, and Jesus’ commission to Peter, and his primacy, as seen in Holy Scripture. And from examining Church history to see which Christian body or institution has avoided officially promulgated heresy these two thousand years. Only one has.

To begin with, suppose our interpretations do fall short of certainty? But unless all interpretations are equally uncertain, why is that a problem? [p. 70]

Merely human ones, collectively, always do fall short and contradict each other. That’s precisely why supernatural guidance and an infallible teaching Church was a absolute necessity. Once Protestants rejected an infallible teaching Church and tradition, it doomed itself to chaos and theological relativism, and that’s exactly what their history of many thousands of competing denominations demonstrates.

Why can’t Protestant epistemology appeal to “supernatural faith”? [p. 70]

It can in areas where it agrees with us. It can’t in the usual instances where there is endless internal contradiction, because that is the logically necessary presence of error and falsehood, which cannot be a good thing. And it can’t in the case of late-arriving theological novelties like sola Scriptura and sola fide. If these were such bedrock truths, God would have seen to it that the Church taught them all along,. But it didn’t. So they are immediately suspect on that basis alone, along with others.

So long as Christians are heavenbound, why is hermeneutical certitude required? [p. 71]

Because God desires it, as shown in Paul’s constant insistence upon it. I don’t see anywhere indicated in Holy Scripture that only some can know the whole truth of Christian doctrine, or that no one can, or that there are competing schools that contradict each other, rather than one unified Church, or that doctrinal dissensions and disagreements are to be expected and tolerated, let alone praised and glorified as open-mindedness or the status quo, etc. Jesus and the Bible writers (St. John and St. Paul above all) all assume that there is one truth (“the truth”), one traditionone doctrine: that can be known with God’s help, and the Church’s guidance:

Luke 1:4 that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed.

John 1:17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

John 4:23 But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for such the Father seeks to worship him. (cf. 8:31-32)

John 15:26 But when the Counselor comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness to me; (cf. 14:6; 16:13; 17:17-19) 

John 18:37 . . . For this I was born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Every one who is of the truth hears my voice.”

John 19:35 He who saw it has borne witness — his testimony is true, and he knows that he tells the truth — that you also may believe.

Romans 9:1 I am speaking the truth in Christ, I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit,

1 Corinthians 2:13 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. (cf. 2 Cor 13:8) 

Galatians 5:7 You were running well; who hindered you from obeying the truth?

Ephesians 1:13 In him you also, who have heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and have believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit,

Ephesians 4:25 Therefore, putting away falsehood, let every one speak the truth with his neighbor, for we are members one of another. 

Ephesians 5:9 (for the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and true), (cf. 6:14) 

Philippians 4:8 Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. 

Colossians 1:3-10 We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you, because we have heard of your faith in Christ Jesus and of the love which you have for all the saints, because of the hope laid up for you in heaven. Of this you have heard before in the word of the truth, the gospel which has come to you, as indeed in the whole world it is bearing fruit and growing — so among yourselves, from the day you heard and understood the grace of God in truth, as you learned it from Ep’aphras our beloved fellow servant. He is a faithful minister of Christ on our behalf and has made known to us your love in the Spirit. And so, from the day we heard of it, we have not ceased to pray for you, asking that you may be filled with the knowledge of his will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, to lead a life worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God.

1 Timothy 2:4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 

1 Timothy 3:15 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

1 Timothy 4:3 . . . those who believe and know the truth. 

2 Timothy 2:25 God may perhaps grant that they will repent and come to know the truth, (cf. 1:14; 3:7-8) 

2 Timothy 4:4 and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths.

Titus 1:1 Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to further the faith of God’s elect and their knowledge of the truth which accords with godliness,

Titus 1:14 instead of giving heed to Jewish myths or to commands of men who reject the truth. 

Hebrews 10:26 . . . the knowledge of the truth, . . .

James 5:19 My brethren, if any one among you wanders from the truth and some one brings him back, 

2 Peter 1:12 Therefore I intend always to remind you of these things, though you know them and are established in the truth that you have. (cf. 1 Pet 1:22)

1 John 2:27 but the anointing which you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that any one should teach you; as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie, just as it has taught you, abide in him. (cf. 2:21)

1 John 3:19 By this we shall know that we are of the truth, and reassure our hearts before him. (cf. 4:6)

1 John 5:7 And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth. 

2 John 1:1-2 The elder to the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth, and not only I but also all who know the truth, because of the truth which abides in us and will be with us for ever: 

3 John 1:3-4 For I greatly rejoiced when some of the brethren arrived and testified to the truth of your life, as indeed you do follow the truth. No greater joy can I have than this, to hear that my children follow the truth.

3 John 1:12 Deme’trius has testimony from every one, and from the truth itself; I testify to him too, and you know my testimony is true.

Related Reading:

Bible vs. Denominationalism and Against “Primary / Secondary” Doctrines [8-18-06]

“Reply to Calvin” #4: “Primary” & “Secondary” Doctrines [4-3-17]

Although the Spirit is given to the apostles at Pentecost, that’s inclusive rather than exclusive to the apostles. The Spirit is given to Christians in general, including revelatory dreams and visions (Acts 2:16-17). Throughout the Book of Acts, the gift of the Spirit is common property of Christian converts, including supernatural phenomena. [p. 71]

Yes, the Bible plainly teaches that the Holy Spirit indwells all Christian believers.

There’s no clerical/lay dichotomy in that regard. [p. 71]

There was at the Jerusalem council, because it declared an infallible decision, led by the Holy Spirit, as shown above (which is blatantly contrary to sola Scriptura; indeed, fatal to it). Only apostles and popes have that sort of infallibility on their own, as individuals and that’s still the “clerical/lay dichotomy” because apostles and popes are on a much higher level than us run-of-the-mill laity.

A basic problem is that modern Catholicism tries to combine two divergent paradigms. The deposit of faith represents the traditional paradigm. That’s fixed. Complete. But modern Catholicism has added the theory of development. That leads to special pleading, where theological innovations are reclassified as theological developments. [p. 71]

It’s not a “basic problem” for us at all. It is in Hays’ deficient understanding of what development is in the first place. Development is completely consistent with one tradition progressively unfolding and being better understood over time. Development of doctrine is not evolution of doctrine. It’s not “amoeba to dinosaur” (fundamental change); it’s “acorn to oak” (essential continuity — with growth — of the same thing).

It’s demonstrably false that throughout the NT, Peter is the central authority, the primary teacher on whom all others depend for final rulings in church governance. For the first few chapters in Acts, Peter takes the lead. After that, others like Stephen and Philip step in. Then Peter is eclipsed by Paul, because Paul is more talented than Peter.

The NT has two letters attributed to Peter. In mainstream Catholic scholarship, sanctioned by the Magisterium, Petrine authorship is denied. Most of the NT was composed by writers other than Peter. The Book of Acts contains some Petrine speeches, but mainstream Catholic scholarship regards the speeches in Acts as fictional. My point is not to agree with that but to respond to modern Catholicism on its own terms. And even if we take a more conservative position, the dominant and predominant NT teaching is from teachers other than Peter. [p. 72]

This is the good old “pitting Paul against Peter” failed Protestant attempt. I’ve addressed it many times:

50 New Testament Proofs for Petrine Primacy & the Papacy [1994]

Primacy of St. Peter Verified by Protestant Scholars [1994]

Reply to Critique of “50 NT Proofs for the Papacy” (vs. Jason Engwer) [3-14-02]

Refutation of a Satirical “Pauline Papacy” Argument (vs. Jason Engwer) [9-30-03]

Papal Passages Lk 22:31-34 & Jn 21:15-17 (vs. Jason Engwer) [5-12-20]

Did Peter or James Preside at the Jerusalem Council? (And Was it the Prototype of Ecumenical Councils or Merely a Local Synod?) [5-21-21]

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

Reply to Lucas Banzoli’s 205 Potshots at St. Peter, Part I (+ Pt. 2. / Pt. 3 / Pt. 4) [5-26-22]

No Papacy in the NT? Think Again (vs. Jason Engwer). With Special Emphasis on the Protestant Exegesis of “The keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 16:19) [8-1-22]

Defending 20 Biblical Proofs for the Papacy (vs. Lucas Banzoli) [+ Part II] [2-13-23]

Reply to Rodrigo Silva on NT Evidences for the Papacy [2-27-23]

Did You Know That St. Peter is Mentioned More Than St. Paul in the New Testament? I Didn’t Till Today [Facebook, 2-27-23]

Reply to Steve Hays’ Caricatures of the Papacy [2-28-23]

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,200+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-one books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation InformationThanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***

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.

2023-05-17T13:28:26-04:00

Bogus Charges of Catholic Eisegesis; Biblical Types & Symbols; Mystical Church; “Full of Grace”; Protestant False Dichotomies

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, knowing full well my history of being condemned and vilified by other anti-Catholics (and his buddies) like James White, Eric Svendsen, and James Swan, 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. . . . The term “apostasy” carries with it a heavy presumption that the apostate is a hell-bound reprobate. I think it’s unwarranted to assume that all Catholics or converts to Catholicism are damned.

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 2: Exposition]

Catholicism: A Journey to the Heart of Fantasia

In this post I’ll comment on some representative passages in Robert Barron’s Catholicism: A Journey to the Heart of the Faith (2011). [p. 59]

I won’t get into defending Bp. Barron’s words (that’s for him to do), but I’ll comment on some of Hays’ rejoinders.

. . . theological vacuum in the hierarchy. So few bishops seem to be believers, even by Catholic standards. [p. 59]

Really? What’s his evidence for that? Hays wrongheadedly claimed that I wasn’t a bona fide orthodox Catholic, either, but rather, a weird, artificial “hybrid” of evangelicalism + Catholicism. This was one of his most annoying claims sent my way. So I’m not inclined at all to accept his report, prima facie, about “few bishops” being good Catholics. Of course, his burden would be to demonstrate this, and — almost needless to say —  he didn’t. That wasn’t part of the game, the way he played it.

Barron is an eloquent, seductive mythmaker. [p. 59]

That’s “anti-Catholic-speak” for “he makes good arguments, that I can’t answer, so I’ll immediately start in with the ad hominem name-calling and poisoning of the well.”

His biblical prooftexts for Catholicism detach the text from the original meaning, and reattachment it to “development”. [p. 59]

This is the usual boogeyman of development of doctrine, that anti-Catholics, virtually to a person, can’t bring themselves to understand. They invariably claim that it’s a rationalization, after the fact, of “distinctive Catholic” doctrines.

Once theology is cut off from the sacred text, it takes on a life of its own, in ever-bolder flights of fantasy. . . . No longer constrained by the reality of revelation, it goes wherever imagination takes it. [p. 59]

I couldn’t agree more; but I think this is rampant among Protestants, not Catholics. These are the folks whose two “pillars” of belief are sola Scriptura and sola fide: neither of which is taught in the Bible at all. The more honest among them are now openly admitting, particularly, that sola Scriptura isn’t taught in the Bible, but that it doesn’t matter; they will accept it anyway as one of their primary premises. In other words, it’s one of many extrabiblical Protestant traditions of men. So for Hays to project this shortcoming onto Bp. Barron and Catholics generally, is the height of irony.

The exercise has a snowball effect, as seminal errors accumulate and magnify. [p. 59]

Indeed it does, and this sort of effect is one of the reasons that Protestants keep dividing and forming yet more denominations, into the many thousands. Catholics have a magisterium and system of authority that makes it clear what the Catholic Church believes, and what every Catholic is duty-bound to accept.

In some ways, Barron’s book is a throwback to Chateaubriand’s The Genius of Christianity. An apologetic heavy on aesthetics. Catholicism is too pretty not to be true! [p. 59]

A clever demeaning insult . . .

“Icon” is a loaded word that’s acquired connotations it didn’t have in Pauline usage. So Barron’s rendering is anachronistic. [p. 60]

It simply means “image.” Hays himself had written a little bit before: “St. Paul referred to Jesus as “the icon of the invisible God.” That’s Colossians 1:15. Most translations render the Greek eikon there as “image.”

“Sacramental” is another loaded word that’s foreign to Paul’s statement. [p. 61]

Not at all. The broadest meaning of “sacrament” is “grace conveyed by matter.” The incarnation is clearly a means of that. God in becoming flesh brought about the possibility of salvation for all men. The physicality of that is sacramental. Protestants themselves talk about being “saved by His blood,” etc. That’s profoundly sacramental: akin to talking about His sacred heart or the immaculate heart of Mary. The New Testament refers to “an expiation by his blood” (Rom 3:25), “justified by his blood” (Rom 5:9), “redemption through his blood, . . . according to the riches of his grace” (Eph 1:7), and “him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood” (Rev 1:5). That’s sacramentalism, folks.

Bp. Barron wrote eloquently (and quite biblically) about the Annunciation. Hays shot back:

Instead of Joseph Campbell’s The Hero with a Thousand Faces, we now have The Heroine with a Thousand Faces. Why not go full Hindu and declare Mary the White Goddess with multiple avatars? Why not throw in Tinker Bell and Glenda the Good Witch while he’s at it? [p. 60]

This is too ridiculous and asinine to reply to at all. But it’s classic Hays mockery and deliberate straw-manning and caricature. It’s also blasphemous, which can apply to persons and things beside God. Hays doesn’t address the points that Bp. Barron makes. He simply dismisses them with a smirk and a deluded anti-Catholicism that is relentlessly and willfully blind. This was, sad to say, a constant feature of his anti-Catholic apologetics or unreasonable facsimile thereof, as I will note throughout this series.

As long as he’s going to indulge in unbridged allegory, why stop there? What about the six stone water pots? Let’s tease out their numerological import. And the composition of the water pots. The stone must have some emblematic significance. And the third day. [p. 61]

There are all sorts of symbolism and non-literal multiple meanings in Holy Scripture. Protestants hold to this just as Catholics do; they simply ignore or underemphasize it when it applies to Mary. The Protestant Meyer’s NT Commentary, for example, noted:

Not stated as explanatory of the Jewish custom, but as vividly describing the exact circumstances, yet not with any symbolic significance (six, Lange thinks, was the number of poverty and labour).

Maybe Hays would mock that observation (were he here to respond and willing to do so)? Is that indulging in “unbridled allegory” and outrageously “cut off from the sacred text” too? Ian Paul, adjunct professor at Fuller Theological Seminary, noted that “many readers interpret the six stone water jars symbolically.” These included St. Augustine, whom he cites, observing, “Now the six water-pots signify the six ages, which were not without prophecy. And those six periods, divided and separated as it were by joints, would be as empty vessels unless they were filled by Christ. Why did I say, the periods which would run fruitlessly on, unless the Lord Jesus were preached in them? Prophecies are fulfilled, the water-pots are full; but that the water may be turned into wine, Christ must be understood in that whole prophecy” (Tractates on John 9.6).

The 1939 International Standard Bible Encyclopedia has an article on “Type”, which states:

The Bible furnishes abundant evidence of the presence of types and of typical instruction in the Sacred Word. The New Testament attests this fact. It takes up a large number of persons and things and events of former dispensations, and it treats them as adumbrations and prophecies of the future.

The article cited the Dutch Reformed theologian Jan Jacob van Oosterzee (1817 – 1882):

That the Old Testament is rich in types, or rather forms in its totality one type, of the New Testament, follows necessarily from the entirely unique position which belongs to Christ as the center of the history of the world and of revelation. As we constantly see the principle embodied in the vegetable and animal kingdoms, that the higher species are already typified in a lower stage of development, so do we find, in the domain of saving revelation, the highest not only prepared for, but also shadowed forth, by that which precedes in the lower spheres.

Of course, the reason Barron resorts to allegory, absent any textual clues, is because there’s not nearly enough at the “literal level” of the Gospels to justify Catholic Mariology. [p. 61]

So he claims; but he does not argue and demonstrate, per his usual modus operandi. I provide tons of biblical arguments for Catholic Mariology. And I wrote a book that gave a hundred biblical arguments illustrating the utter absence of sola Scriptura in the Bible. Hays was aware of my apologetics work, but he couldn’t trouble himself to try to systematically refute it. He only had time for caricaturing my Catholic belief and then launching a hundred childish personal attacks my way.

Throughout the book he says the church is the “mystical” body of Christ. What does that mean? Where does he get that from Scripture–or does he? [p. 61]

It comes from the Scriptural use of “Body of Christ”: “you are the body of Christ and individually members of it” (1 Cor 12:27), “He is the head of the body, the church” (Col 1:18), “the church, which is his body, the fulness of him who fills all in all” (Eph 1:22-23), “the church, his body” (Eph 5:23), “we are members of his body” (Eph 5:30), “his body, that is, the church” (Col 1:24). That’s a mystery, or non-literal, or mystical, if you will. “Mystical” isn’t a biblical word, but it comes from the same root as “mystery,” which is a biblical word, mysterion (Strong’s word #3466). It appears 27 times in the NT. Catholics, by the way, regard Protestants as part of this Body of Christ, by virtue of their regeneration in the sacrament of baptism. That’s not just ne saying this, or Vatican II. The Council of Trent taught it in the 16th century.

Even if we wish to play along with the maternal metaphor, children outgrow their parents, so “in a very real sense,” the church should outgrow Mary. [p. 61]

Right. By the same token,  God is called our Father, so are we supposed to outgrow Him, too (following the paternal metaphor?).

Once again, notice the wild leaps of logic. Does kecharitomene actually mean “full of grace”? or is that reading the Vulgate back into the Greek? This is substituting tradition for what the text actually says. [p. 61]

The great Baptist Greek scholar A.T. Robertson thought it did:

“Highly favoured” (kecharitomene). Perfect passive participle of charitoo and means endowed with grace (charis), enriched with grace as in Ephesians. 1:6, . . . The Vulgate gratiae plena “is right, if it means ‘full of grace which thou hast received‘; wrong, if it means ‘full of grace which thou hast to bestow‘” (Plummer). (Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. II, 13)

Kecharitomene has to do with God’s grace, as it is derived from the Greek root, charis (literally, “grace”). Thus, in the KJV, charis is translated “grace” 129 out of the 150 times that it appears. Greek scholar Marvin Vincent noted that even Wycliffe and Tyndale (no enthusiastic supporters of the Catholic Church) both rendered kecharitomene in Luke 1:28 as “full of grace” and that the literal meaning was “endued with grace” (Word Studies in the New Testament, Vol. I, 259).

Likewise, well-known Protestant linguist W.E. Vine, defines it as “to endue with Divine favour or grace” (An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Vol., II, 171). Even a severe critic of Catholicism like James White can’t avoid the fact that kecharitomene (however translated) cannot be divorced from the notion of grace, and stated that the term referred to “divine favor, that is, God’s grace” (The Roman Catholic Controversy [1996], 201).

In context, Mary is favored by God to be messiah’s mother. Gabriel can’t refer to someone as the object of divine favor unless they were immaculately conceived? Because Catholic Mariology is so underdetermined by Scripture, Catholic theologians must inflate the few references to Mary in the NT. [p. 61]

Here is the relevant biblical argument:

For St. Paul, grace (charis) is the antithesis and “conqueror” of sin (emphases added in the following verses):

Romans 6:14: “For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.” (cf. Rom 5:17, 20-21; 2 Cor 1:12; 2 Timothy 1:9)

We are saved by grace, and grace alone:

Ephesians 2:8-10: “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God – not because of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.” (cf. Acts 15:11; Rom 3:24; 11:5; Eph 2:5; Titus 2:11; 3:7; 1 Pet 1:10)

Thus, the biblical argument outlined above proceeds as follows:

1. Grace saves us.

2. Grace gives us the power to be holy and righteous and without sin.

Therefore, for a person to be full of grace is both to be saved and to be completely, exceptionally holy. It’s a “zero-sum game”: the more grace one has, the less sin. One might look at grace as water, and sin as the air in an empty glass (us). When you pour in the water (grace), the sin (air) is displaced. A full glass of water, therefore, contains no air (see also, similar zero-sum game concepts in 1 John 1:7, 9; 3:6, 9; 5:18). To be full of grace is to be devoid of sin. Thus we might re-apply the above two propositions:

1. To be full of the grace that saves is surely to be saved.

2. To be full of the grace that gives us the power to be holy, righteous, and without sin is to be fully without sin, by that same grace.

A deductive, biblical argument for the Immaculate Conception, with premises derived directly from Scripture, might look like this:

1. The Bible teaches that we are saved by God’s grace.

2. To be “full of” God’s grace, then, is to be saved.

3. Therefore, Mary is saved (Luke 1:28).

4. The Bible teaches that we need God’s grace to live a holy life, free from sin.

5. To be “full of” God’s grace is thus to be so holy that one is sinless.

6. Therefore, Mary is holy and sinless.

7. The essence of the Immaculate Conception is sinlessness.

8. Therefore, the Immaculate Conception, in its essence, can be directly deduced from Scripture.

The only way out of the logic would be to deny one of the two premises, and hold either that grace does not save or that grace is not that power which enables one to be sinless and holy. It is highly unlikely that any evangelical Protestant would take such a position, so the argument is a very strong one, because it proceeds upon their own premises.

In this fashion, the essence of the Immaculate Conception (i.e., the sinlessness of Mary) is proven from biblical principles and doctrines accepted by every orthodox Protestant. Certainly all mainstream Christians agree that grace is required both for salvation and to overcome sin. So in a sense my argument is only one of degree, deduced (almost by common sense, I would say) from notions that all Christians hold in common.

The Bible never says Mary is the ark of the covenant. That’s another example of Catholics building on a false premise. [p. 62]

It does, in effect, through several analogies.

In John’s Gospel, Jesus is the true temple. But in Catholic Mariology, Mary replaces Jesus. [p. 62]

She does no such thing, according to our teaching. This is simply Hays’ emotional anti-Marianism and unbiblical “either/or” dichotomies. Catholic apologist Patrick Madrid wrote, against this false notion:

Jesus shares his other unique roles in lesser ways with Christians.

1) Jesus is the Creator of all things (John 1:1-3, Col 1:16-17, Heb 1:1-2), yet when it comes to creating human life Jesus shares this role with men and women, mediating his creatorship through us via sexual intercourse . . . [making] his role as Creator dependent in a way on human action.

2) Jesus is the shepherd of his flock the Church (Jn 10:16), yet he shares his shepherdhood in a subordinate way with others, beginning with Peter (Jn 21:15-17) and extending it later to others (Eph 4:11) . . . Jesus says he’s the only shepherd (Jn 10:11-16), yet this seemingly exclusive statement doesn’t conflict with him making Peter shepherd . . . or with his calling others to be shepherds as well (Eph 4:11). Peter emphasizes that Jesus shares his role as shepherd with others by calling Jesus the chief shepherd . . . (1 Pet 5:4). Note also that the Greek construction of John 10:16 . . . is the same as 1 Timothy 2:5 (. . . one mediator . . .). The apostles and their successors the bishops, are truly shepherds also.

3) Jesus is the high priest of the New Covenant . . . (Heb 3:1, 4:14-15, 5:5-10, 7:15-26, 8:1, 9:11). But the Bible also says Christians are called to share in Christ’s priesthood (1 Pet 2:5-9; Rev 1:6, 5:10, 20:6).

4) Jesus is the supreme judge (Jn 5:27, 9:39; Rom 14:10; 2 Cor 5:10; 2 Tim 4:1), yet Christians are called to share in Christ’s judgeship. They will be judges in heaven, even judging the angels (Matt 19:28; Lk 22:30; 1 Cor 6:2-3; Rev 20:4).

5) Jesus is the sovereign king of the universe (Mk 15:32; 1 Tim 6:15; Rev 15:3, 17:14, 19:16), but he shares his kingship with all Christians, who in heaven will wear crowns, sit on thrones, and reign as kings alongside Jesus – but always subordinate to him . . . (see also Matt 19:23; Lk 22:30; Rev 1:6, 3:21, 5:10).

6) Jesus forgives our sins and reconciles us to the Father (2 Cor 5:18-21), but he calls us to share in various ways in his ministry of forgiveness and reconciliation (Matt 9:5-8, 18:18; Jn 20:21-2; Acts 2:38; 2 Cor 5:18-20; James 5:14-15) . . .

Each Christian is called to share in these roles in subordinate ways. The principle of sharing in Christ’s roles extends, in the form of intercessory prayer, to Christ’s mediatorship as well.” (“Any Friend of God’s is a Friend of Mine”, This Rock [now Catholic Answers Magazine], Sep. 1992, 7-13; quote from 10-12; numbers added)

This is true even regarding salvation and distribution of grace, according to many biblical passages: particularly from St. Paul. Mary can help distribute God’s grace and salvation? No problem at all, teaches Paul in many passages. Paul conveys not the slightest inkling or hint that any of this usurps God’s sole prerogatives.

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,200+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-one books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation InformationThanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***

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.

2023-05-17T10:22:51-04:00

Purported Cures from Lourdes

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, knowing full well my history of being condemned and vilified by other anti-Catholics (and his buddies) like James White, Eric Svendsen, and James Swan, 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. . . . The term “apostasy” carries with it a heavy presumption that the apostate is a hell-bound reprobate. I think it’s unwarranted to assume that all Catholics or converts to Catholicism are damned.

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. Those of Anglican writer Dr. Lydia McGrew (actually a friendly acquaintance of mine) in green, and Christian philosopher Robert Larmer‘s in purple.

*****

[Chapter 1: Miracles]

Assessing Lourdes

This is a post on Lourdes. Lydia McGrew kindly provided feedback on a draft version, so I’m including our exchange (with permission) at the end. [p. 52]

And I will reply to that as well. That should be interesting, seeing that in the past we had a great exchange: Dialogue with an Anglican on “Praying to Mary,” Patron Saints, Etc. [11-10-14]. We’ve been friendly ever since, and I love her work. After that back-and-forth, Hays triumphantly and no doubt jubilantly exclaimed in the title of a post: “Lydia McGrew wallops Dave Armstrong” [11-9-14] This was a real class act on his part, since he cited all of her words and none of mine, didn’t provide a link to the posted dialogue so people could read both sides, and moreover, I had been banned long since on his blog, and so couldn’t reply in context. Very impressive, huh? That’s considered Christian civility, fair play, and self-confidence, I guess, in the anti-Catholic mentality.

It seems to me that there are two different ways we might classify the cures at Lourdes as coincidental. One way, championed by atheists, is to say that in any sufficiently large sample group, it’s statistically inevitable that some medical conditions will natural resolve themselves. This will happen anyway, regardless of prayer. The cliché example is spontaneous remission from cancer. [p. 52]

But this is a very weak “argument” (that’s assuming it can even properly be called one): so self-evidently weak that I don’t think it deserves any further reply.

According to the official site, only 70 cases have been formally confirmed as miraculous healings by the Catholic church: [p. 52] [link]

Yes; of course, these are only the most rigorously examined cases, that the Church felt confident enough to proclaim, with little fear of refutation. It doesn’t follow that there are not a lot more miracles with solid degrees of evidence. Over 7,000 have been purported to take place there. Hays’ arbitrary and unimpressive reasoning appears to be: “only the most medically scrutinized cases are worth looking into at all. We can ignore the 6,930 + other reputed miracles as of no significance or relevance to the discussion.”

[I]n any sample group of 200 million people who pray for miraculous healing, there will be a comparable percentage of naturally impossible cures. [p. 52]

He can play that game if he likes, but it’s silly and proves nothing. Clearly, cases have to be examined individually and considered on their own merits. We’ve done that: at least with seventy cases. And I’m sure there are many more that have been looked into and confirmed at less than the highest level of Church proclamations, to a serious degree. Hays plainly didn’t want to get into that (it would be too “messy” and difficult and time-consuming) and so he quickly devised a way to dismiss literally over 99% of the reputed cures. Pretty handy trick there! But it impresses no one who is not already a sophist and true “anti-Mary” believer, come hell or high water.

Hays could have chosen to start looking in-depth at the 70 most documented cases (providing 70 — or at least some — counter-explanations that he deems more plausible than the opinion of “cure”), if he were actually interested in a serious, open-minded debate; but he wanted no part of that, either. Instead, he devoted all of four pages to the matter, and about 1 1/2 of those were words from Drs. McGrew and Larmer. This is simply not serious interaction. It’s a quick, breezy attempt to dismiss something irrationally thought and decided beforehand to be absurd or impossible, so that he could move on, pretending that he had resolved the subject to everyone’s contentment.

Mind you, that may oversimplify things. [p. 52]

Now that‘s the understatement of the century! But I’m delighted that he made it. It’s always good to be self-aware.

I’d be very surprised if those 7000 are on the order of the restoration of amputated limbs. [p. 53]

Not likely, because that would be among the most extraordinary cures, and is frequently the scenario that atheists bring up.

Verified not to have been hoaxes, as well. It’s important to remember that plenty of people aren’t going to suffer any serious consequences for perpetrating a religious hoax. Nobody is going to crucify them. [p. 53]

This is true, but I state again that the existence a counterfeit is not a disproof of the real thing. Granted, it may whittle down the “7,000” figure a bit. But that doesn’t get Hays off the hook, either. He was till is duty-bound to start examining serious numbers of the reputed miracles of Lourdes, if he wanted to exercise the prerogative of claiming that they are bogus or nonexistent en masse, rather than employing an anti-Catholic variant of David Hume’s weak “classic” argument against miracles (they are very rare, so why not nonexistent altogether?: is basically what it amounts to). Hume had no interest in examining purported miracles anymore than Steve Hays did. They both wanted to declare them impossible (well, only the Catholic ones, for Steve) from their armchairs, as if factual, historical reality bows to their whims and desires. That is simply not possible to do. They have to be grappled with.

It might be argued that the official figure (70 miraculous cures) is artificially low because the criteria are artificially rigorous. Since the Catholic church is putting its reputation on the line, it has stringent standards to vouch a miracle (in the past it wasn’t so scrupulous). [p. 53]

Now he’s finally talking some sense.

If so, then the actual number of miracles is probably higher than the official figure, but because “unexplained” is so vague, without further information about specific cases, we can’t judge if the real figure is at the low end of the 7000, high end, or somewhere in the middle. [p. 53]

Yeah, we’d have to actually get down “in the dirt” and down to brass tacks and start looking at them one-by-one, and offering alternate explanations in every case. Hays never did that, and he likely never would have if he had lived longer. And he didn’t — I submit — because he looked down his nose at it as “silly Catholic junk.” We don’t spend time with things that we think are ridiculous. I think anti-Catholicism on the whole is ridiculous, too. But (dead-wrong as I think it is) I grant that there are articulate and sincere exponents of it, like Steve Hays, that I accord some modicum of respect by actually hearing them out and interacting with their reasoning. Everyone can observe me doing that in this long series, and in hundreds of my articles found on my Anti-Catholicism web page.

I think you are suggesting that God might cure them because they prayed or because he has some other reason to perform a miracle, not because of anything to do with Mary. That’s a legitimate possibility, but it has some problems since God presumably knows that such a miracle will be credited to Mary’s intercession. He could just have cured the person before he left to go to Lourdes. [p. 53]

Good point!

It raises difficult issues regarding providence however we slice it. I wish to avoid a double standard. [p. 53]

I grant his sincere desire; I do not grant a successful promulgation of said desire on his part, in Matters Catholic.

Mind you, a Catholic apologist might accuse me of special pleading because I detach the miracle from Marian claims. [p. 53]

Yes, either that or desperation, if there is a difference.

But a Catholic apologist is in the same situation, only in reverse. Because there are well-documented Protestant and/or charismatic miracles, a Catholic apologist must be able to distance those cases from Protestant claims. [p. 53]

Really? I feel no such need whatsoever. Catholic apologists don’t have to deny all Protestant miracles. We regard Protestants as our brothers-in-Christ, due, among many other things, to their legitimate regenerative baptism (itself supernatural and miraculous in every case). I believed in many “Protestant miracles” when I was a Protestant, and I believe in all those same miracles as a Protestant. The Wesleyan revivals reported many of them. I edited a book of Wesley’s quotations, published by a Wesleyan publisher (Beacon Hill Press). I believe I was healed, myself, and that my wife Judy also was (both occurring while we were Protestants).

So both sides have the conundrum of conceding a miracle but denying that it verifies a sectarian claimant. [pp. 53-54]

I and my “side” have no such “conundrum”. We view such miracles as verifying the power and mercy of God and the presence of the Holy Spirit. It is a matter utterly indifferent to me what denomination someone is in, who presided over a healing. It’s simply not an issue. I’m only concerned with false doctrines, such as that God supposedly always heals by demand: a serious error that I refuted as a charismatic Protestant in 1982, as one of my first apologetics research areas. Hays is only worried about miracles at Lourdes because his false and arbitrary presuppositions don’t allow them. His mind was already made up before examining any purported miracle (which is why he didn’t trouble himself to do so!).

I can’t remember if you consider the distinction important between God’s performing a miracle and God’s refraining from preventing something from happening. I do consider it important. It seems to me less likely that God would refrain from intervening to prevent someone from happening to have an amazing healing at Lourdes (by secondary causes) than that God would perform a miracle to heal someone at Lourdes. So that may be a difference between us. [p. 54]

Another great comment from Lydia. She’s not anti-Catholic as Steve was. It makes a huge difference in how one argues.

Even if we grant the distinction in principle, that breaks down in relation to a healing that is naturally impossible, circumventing secondary causes and natural processes. At best that might apply to a subset of healings that are preternatural or coincidence miracles rather than something contrary to nature that bypasses secondary process. [p. 54]

Can you rephrase that in English, please?

Oh, I agree. If one granted that God had deliberately performed a real miracle (one might say a miracle-miracle) at Lourdes, one would have to deal with the implications of that. I would say in that case it would have some evidential value in favor of Marian doctrines, for the reason I have already given. Because it is not akin to the case of a reflection in a bank window or a pattern on burnt toast or whatever but rather a real miracle.

Of course, we have some evidence for all kinds of things that are false! I think sometimes it’s difficult to bear in mind that “some evidence” doesn’t mean “strong evidence” or “evidence to which there is no counterweight.” I’m quite willing to say that there is probably some evidence for Catholicism in the form of reported miracles, visions, etc., but that it is strongly counterbalanced by the evidence against. Of course, the theoretical arguments for Catholicism are extremely bad, as many of your posts show. The empirical argument is really the basket into which Catholics should place their eggs, as it were. [pp. 54-55]

This is much better argumentation than Steve’s. I see no necessity in this context to respond, however, as it is on an abstract level. I think the skeptic of Lourdes cures needs to examine actual purported miracles with a fine-toothed comb and refute them, if they think they can. Lydia recommends making an “empirical argument.” I agree! In a dialogue with an atheist, I brought up a scientific study of the purported cures at Lourdes, from the Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences (produced by Oxford University): “The Lourdes Medical Cures Revisited” (2012). These guys did what I am challenging Lourdes critics to do. From the Abstract:

We discuss the clinical criteria of the cures and the reliability of medical records. . . . We studied 411 patients cured in 1909–14 and thoroughly reviewed the twenty-five cures acknowledged between 1947 and 1976. . . . The Lourdes phenomenon, extraordinary in many respects, still awaits scientific explanation.

And the Conclusions:

We have also been struck by a matter-of-fact observation: the occurrence of cures that were not instantaneous but rather required days or weeks. This mode of cure occurred in about one-third of patients cured in 1909–14 and 1947–76. Largely unnoticed and overlooked, this pattern does not square with the usual script of a miracle, nor does it fit with the desiderata of the Church. From the pragmatic standpoint of an agnostic, the Lourdes cures, fewer than originally thought, have been a heterogeneous collection of medical facts, neither impostures nor miracles. Uncanny and weird, the cures are currently beyond our ken but still impressive, incredibly effective, and awaiting a scientific explanation. Creating a theoretical explanatory framework could be within the reach of neurophysiologists in the next decades.

After many mental twists and turns, we reached the same conclusions as Carrel some eighty to hundred years ago: “Instead of being a simple place of miracles, of interest only to the pious, Lourdes presents a considerable scientific interest,” and “Although uncommon, the miraculous cures are evidence of somatic and mental processes we do not know.” Upping the ante, we dare write that understanding these processes could bring about new and effective therapeutic methods.

The Lourdes cures concern science as well as religion.

That is serious and open-minded examination, from medical scholars and scientists. What Steve is attempting in this section is not. The difference is like day and night.

I would even go so far as to say that the conversion story of Wright (he’s a sci-fi author, I can’t remember his first name–John?) is some evidence for Catholicism. He was an atheist. IIRC, he prayed one of those “atheist prayers” (such as “If you’re there, God, show me”). Very shortly thereafter, he had a heart attack and was in a coma or something for a while. During that time he claims that he had visions of the Virgin Mary. I think he says Jesus as well, but my memory is a little hazy. I found his blog increasingly weird and coarse and stopped reading it several years ago. Anyway, he recovered and promptly became Roman Catholic, which I suppose is understandable under the circumstances. [p. 55]

That’s open-minded, and I appreciate it.

“Spontaneous remission” is not an explanation of why someone gets better. It is the admission that no explanation is known. It is probable that some events labelled as ‘spontaneous remission’ are answers to prayer, but that the attending doctors will not countenance a supernatural explanation. I am not claiming there are no spontaneous remissions that have a natural cause. [p. 56]

Agreed.

I agree that some events cannot be plausibly thought to be explicable in terms of natural causes. [p. 56]

Amen!

The criteria for an event being called a miracle at Lourdes are extremely strict. Stanley Jaki in his “Miracles and Physics” references a case where a compound fracture, i.e. bones sticking through the skin, was instantaneously healed, but it did not meet Lourdes’ criteria for calling something a miracle because a medical doctor was not in attendance. Jaki quotes a commentator to the effect that one does not need to be a tailor to tell if a coat is full of holes. [p. 56]

Good and helpful point.

I do not think that healing miracles have to happen at certain special sites, but it does not bother me if God’s providence includes people coming to certain locations to experience healing. If I need to be healed then God may require me to exhibit enough faith to go to a healing meeting being held in a certain location. [p. 56]

Agreed again!

I think God may well perform miracles at Lourdes. That does not to my mind provide strong evidence for Marian doctrine, given that He also performs miracles for people who do not accept Marian doctrine. Both George Whitefield’s and John Wesley’s ministries were distinguished by events I view as miraculous, but Whitefield was Calvinist and Wesley was Arminian. Miracles are evidence of God’s mercy and power, but in His mercy God does not require that we get all our doctrines totally right before He grants a miracle. When Jesus fed the five thousand he did not first ask who accepted him as the Messiah and who did not. [p. 56]

I agree 100% yet again. I’m answering as I read. It’s striking that Dr. Larmer (presumably a Protestant) made some of the very same points that I brought up. I mentioned miracles in the Wesleyan revivals. So did he. I wrote, “We view such miracles as verifying the power and mercy of God.” Dr. Larmer wrote almost identically, “Miracles are evidence of God’s mercy and power.” I stated, “It is a matter utterly indifferent to me what denomination someone is in, who presided over a healing.” Dr. Larmer wrote in a similar vein: “God does not require that we get all our doctrines totally right before He grants a miracle.”

I’m delighted that Steve Hays decided to include these balanced, thoughtful, and persuasive comments from both Lydia McGrew and Robert Larmer.

In the final analysis, then, I see nothing in this section that would cause me to doubt my existing beliefs as to the presence of miraculous cures in Lourdes, and/or as a result of Mary’s intercession for same. It’s simply insufficient and utterly inadequate for the purpose; not within a million miles of being any sort of compelling or even plausible refutation. One marvels at the flat-out weakness and lack of substance in Hays’ presentation, and the thought comes to my surprised and disappointed mind: “this is all you can come up with? This is your best shot?”

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,200+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-one books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation InformationThanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***

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.

2023-05-16T18:45:04-04:00

Our Lady of Fatima 

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, knowing full well my history of being condemned and vilified by other anti-Catholics (and his buddies) like James White, Eric Svendsen, and James Swan, 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. . . . The term “apostasy” carries with it a heavy presumption that the apostate is a hell-bound reprobate. I think it’s unwarranted to assume that all Catholics or converts to Catholicism are damned.

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 1: Miracles]

“Our Lady of Fatima”

I don’t have antecedent objections to angelic apparitions, apparitions of the dead, or visions of Jesus in church history. In a sense I don’t object to “saintly apparitions”. However, by that I mean, not individuals canonized by the church of Rome, [but] crisis apparitions in which a departed Christian might appear to a friend or relative who’s going through an ordeal to lend strategic, timely encouragement at a critical juncture in his life. [p. 50]

This is remarkably unProtestant and semi-Catholic. Hays has no blanket condemnation of ghosts and at least some kinds of apparitions and visions.

[I]n general, I don’t have the same epistemic duty to believe your reported observation than I have to believe my own observations. I’m not necessarily obligated to believe you. [p. 50]

This is a lot of the reason why the Catholic Church is very careful to distinguish private and public revelation. But I hasten to add that public revelation involves eyewitness testimony that was not witnessed firsthand by 100% of all the people alive today, either. We have to exercise faith in order to accept it, and don’t have 100% philosophic “certainty.”

I admit that I rule out Marian apparitions as a matter of principle. I don’t think Mary would appear to people because that usurps devotion to Jesus. Indeed, the Fatima cult is a classic example of Mary supplanting Jesus in the hearts of Catholic devotees. [p. 50]

He starts out reasonably, but now we see the irrationality of an inherent hostility to Mary. It makes no sense, before we even get to the particulars. Hays can conceptualize and accept “angelic apparitions” and these don’t constitute a threat to “devotion to Jesus.” Yet Mary (it appears) must do so — invariably, inherently does so — , in his mind. It’s a classic example of a fundamentally incorrect Protestant “either/or” dichotomous mindset.

And this will “hijack” his analysis from the beginning, because he starts with this false premise: any devotion or honor whatsoever directed towards Mary must constitute idolatry; it must and always mean Mary becomes an idol and takes the place of Jesus “in the hearts of Catholic devotees.” He can’t comprehend any other possible scenario. His false presuppositions don’t allow him to. He’s constitutionally unable to comprehend a non-idolatrous, non-worshipful veneration and honor of even someone as momentous and saintly as the Blessed Virgin Mary, the mother of Jesus, our Lord and Savior and Redeemer. It’s very sad.

And assuredly there are scriptural analogies. The dead Samuel appeared to Saul. Did that detract from “devotion to” God? No. It was God’s will. Samuel gave a true prophecy of Saul’s death the next day. Moses and Elijah appeared with Jesus at the Transfiguration. Did the disciples immediately start worshiping them instead of Jesus? No. Did they “supplant” Jesus in their hearts? No. And they didn’t worship them or make them their idols because there is no such necessity or inclination (save for a very few who go astray).

Many bodies rose from the tombs and started walking around Jerusalem after Jesus’ death (Matthew 27). Does the Bible inform us that everyone started worshiping and adoring them, too instead of God? No (and it certainly would have, if that had actually happened). God even shares His glory with His creatures (as the Bible massively reiterates). How many Protestants are aware of that, and the 26 Bible passages I brought to bear, to prove it beyond any doubt?

These are the sorts of clearly false premises that anti-Catholics (and many ecumenical Protestants) start out with, before they even think about and analyze Catholic beliefs that they reject (above all, our dreaded and despised beliefs about Mary: several of which their own Protestant founders shared). Unless they can be persuaded that their premises are false, they’ll never arrive at these truths. They can’t. It’s like traffic barriers that close off a certain road so that drivers can’t possibly use them. As the old saying goes, “the man convinced against his will retains his original belief still.”

Socrates (and often Jesus) examined people’s premises and presuppositions. That’s often (if not usually) where errors arise. I utilize the same method all the time, and have done so presently. A false notion is accepted on an inadequate basis and becomes the foundation of sand that a lousy unstable house of theology is built upon. The error must be critiqued and exposed at its root.

In effect, Hays then attempts some sort of answer to my objection:

A Catholic might object that I suffer from unfalsifiable skepticism regarding Marian apparitions. No kind of evidence would convince me otherwise. [p. 50]

Yes I would, and did!

In a sense that’s true, but keep in mind that there’s conflicting prima facie evidence. I can’t be equally and simultaneously open to the reputed revelations Muhammad, Swedenborg, Joseph Smith, and Lucia dos Santos. [p. 50]

Now he employs yet another fallacy: besmirching Fatima by associating it with false belief-systems that Catholics and Protestants alike reject. This won’t do, either.

Of course, that doesn’t mean we should discount all reports of supernatural encounters. But it does mean we must bring certain criteria to bear when sifting the putative evidence. [p. 50]

I totally agree. The Catholic Church fully agrees.

And that includes theological criteria (e.g. Deut 13:1-5). [p. 50]

That passage has no direct relevance to a purported apparition of Mary, as I explained in the previous installment. It simply doesn’t refute it. The only doctrine it mentioned is polytheism, where Catholics and Protestants are in full agreement.

[S]ome of the central claims narrow down to a single conduit: the testimony of Lucia. To my knowledge, there’s no independent corroboration for many of her claims. [p. 51]

Likewise, there was “no independent corroboration” of St. Paul having been spoken to by Jesus at his conversion. His companions heard noises but not the words spoken to Paul. There was “no independent corroboration” of God speaking to Abraham on several occasions, and “no independent corroboration” of God speaking to Moses in the burning bush. There was “no independent corroboration” of God speaking to Billy Graham and telling him to believe in the Bible and go preach based on its teachings.

There was “no independent corroboration” of St. Augustine’s experiences leading to his conversion to Catholic Christianity, or of St. Peter seeing the vision of “clean foods” or of Isaiah and Daniel seeing visions of God, or God Himself (take your pick), or the prophets when they (constantly) heard God’s instructions of what to proclaim. Shall I continue?

Hays employs hyper-skeptical atheist methodologies when he approaches “Catholic” topics, in a way that he never would when exactly the same thing applies to prominent biblical or Protestant or patristic figures, as just shown. It’s simply not a disproof. One can attempt to discredit a persons’ credibility, so that their report is suspect (as Hays briefly and unsuccessfully attempted to do with St. Padre Pio earlier in the book), but just because they alone witnessed something is not in and of itself inherently some sort of disproof or reason for the sort of unflinching doubt that Hays extends to Servant of God, Sister Lucia.

He obviously does so because (as he openly admitted) he “rule[s] out Marian apparitions as a matter of principle.” He can’t possibly believe what Lucia reported, with that beginning-point. He must find a way to discredit her report, because the apparition she saw can’t possibly be true (for inadequate reasons, in Hays’ oh-so-skeptical brain). The above attempt miserably fails at that task, too.

In addition, she wrote this down years after the fact. [p. 51]

So did the Gospel writers: the evangelists. Shall we therefore dismiss the Gospels, too? In consistency, we would have to. But one of the constants and hallmarks of anti-Catholicism is its inveterate, relentless double standards and viciously self-defeating propositions.

But even if Mary actually spoke to Lucia, unless Lucia was blessed with verbatim recall, what we’re getting isn’t a statement in Mary’s own words, but in Lucia’s own words. [p. 51]

As in all other such “sole individual” reports, such as the several I mentioned above . . . Again, this is how atheists habitually argue about the Bible itself. Hays draws from a “page” in their antics and directs it inconsistently towards Catholics only.

There’s also the vexed question of how you’d verify a Marian apparition even if you had direct experience of a putative Marian apparition. [p. 51]

There’s also the vexed question of how you’d verify the burning bush [Moses] or the three angels [who appeared to Abraham] or Jesus telling a person to stop persecuting Him [Paul’s conversion] or a vision of being caught up to heaven [Paul] or of the clean foods [Peter] or of any number of Protestant personal conversions involving a profound experience or various spiritual experiences one individual has [I experienced a horrifying vision of hell right before I embarked on my Protestant campus evangelism ministry in 1985], or “after-death” experiences of heaven.

Over 500 people saw the risen Jesus. But how is that “verified” today in the seeming exactitude that Hays demands for Fatima? Atheists simply dismiss it without further thought, as a fairy tale report of an imaginary wish.  How is it absolutely proven? It can’t be. It requires faith. Christianity does not consist solely of reason, after all. Hays almost acts as if it does. The excellent Protestant philosopher / apologist Gary Habermas (whom Hays mentioned earlier as having read a section of his book for advisory purposes) just put out a huge defense of Jesus’ resurrection. Only Christians are impressed. Atheists always find a “way” to dismiss any and all such arguments. And to do so, they argue almost exactly as Hays does when trashing Fatima and all Marian apparitions.

But once we grant the realm of the supernatural, there are other candidates who could presumably impersonate Mary. What about a malevolent ghost or fallen angel? [p. 51]

But if so, they wouldn’t tell the truth in the prophecies, as Mary did at Fatima (many things clearly came true in these prophecies or “secrets”). Demons can’t and won’t do that. Like the real Samuel who appeared to Saul (that many Protestants claim was merely an impersonating demon: the Bible says no such thing) and gave a true prophecy, likewise, Mary gives true prophecies, and did so at Fatima. Again, demons don’t do that.

We know how the devil (and by extension, his followers, the demons) speak, by reading his words spoken in the Garden of Eden and with God in the book of Job, or with Jesus at the temptation in the wilderness. C. S. Lewis nailed “demon-speak” in his masterful Screwtape Letters. What Mary said at Fatima is as different in content and spirit from those things as east is from west, or dry is from wet. Mary talks about how souls can be saved. Demons are gonna do that?

If we take the reports at face value, Mary is quite the linguist. She speaks so many different foreign languages, depending on the audience. Does she speak foreign languages with an Aramaic accent? [p. 51]

Well, Paul wrote:

1 Corinthians 13:9-12 For our knowledge is imperfect and our prophecy is imperfect; [10] but when the perfect comes, the imperfect will pass away. [11] When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became a man, I gave up childish ways. [12] For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood.

I think “perfect” knowledge and “understand[ing] fully” is an awful lot of knowledge. Languages would be part of this perfect and full understanding and knowledge, and far more than that! What must certainly be our extraordinary knowledge in heaven is hardly fit to be fodder for mockery and belittling. Hays is again being most unbiblical in his rush to always denigrate Mary at all costs. Somehow Moses and Elijah could speak to Jesus, even though their language (from some 1300 and 900 or so years before Jesus) would have been very different. The earliest Aramaic inscriptions date from the 11th century BC: at least a hundred years after Moses’ death.

Language is never a barrier in the Bible that I can recall. God has a way to deal with that, when messages are being proclaimed. So why does Hays find it amusing and not fit for belief that Mary would be able to speak Portugese at Fatima? Wouldn’t that be part of the perfect knowledge and full understanding that all in heaven will be granted by the mercy and power of God?

By the same token, why are major Marian apparitions confined to Catholic witnesses? [p. 51]

I imagine it’s because God knows the entrenched, anti-reason, false-premise-laden mindset that many or most Protestants have about Mary. They simply would dismiss it out of hand, just as Hays has done. So they happen among people who are open to accepting and believing them. As the Bible stated about Jesus: “And he did not do many mighty works there, because of their unbelief” (Mt 13:58).

And that’s all Hays could come up as a “refutation” of the events at Fatima! I thought he was just beginning and all of a sudden this section ended. He has offered nothing whatsoever that casts any legitimate, unquestionable doubt upon what has been reported about the apparitions at Fatima. Literally all he did was play the atheist hyper-skeptical game about everything, and that won’t do at all, because the same mindset takes out the Bible, too.

It’s very shoddy and inadequate thinking. But we have come to always expect that from anti-Catholics, trying in vain to rationalize and explain away All Things Distinctively Catholic. It’s a pathetic, embarrassing enterprise, and never difficult to refute (even to refute from the Bible, as well as by logic).

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,200+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-one books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation InformationThanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***

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.

2023-05-16T09:46:09-04:00

Miracle of the Sun at Fatima

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, knowing full well my history of being condemned and vilified by other anti-Catholics (and his buddies) like James White, Eric Svendsen, and James Swan, 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. . . . The term “apostasy” carries with it a heavy presumption that the apostate is a hell-bound reprobate. I think it’s unwarranted to assume that all Catholics or converts to Catholicism are damned.

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 1: Miracles]

“The miracle of the sun”

Hays cited a remarkably articulate eyewitness account of this miracle, from Dr. Gonçalo de Almeida Garrett, Professor of Natural Sciences at Coimbra University.

So you might say that the miracle of the sun is the trump card among Catholic miracles. They don’t get any better than this. Indeed, nothing else approaches the level of public attestation. [p. 25]

Yes, it was a pretty amazing occurrence: tough for Protestants to match. Hays cites Stanley Jaki and Karl Rahner writing some semi-skeptical remarks concerning how many actually witnessed the miracle and wrote about it. Fair enough. But if less saw it than the reported 70,000, that’s no disproof of the miracle itself; it would only mean that it was not as well-attested as most advocates think it is. Jesus’ resurrection was no less true at the moment that only Mary Magdalene was a witness of the risen Jesus, than after more than 500 saw Him.

One ironic point of tension is not that so many observers witnessed this phenomenon, but so few did. For even if tens of thousands of people saw it, it was a geographically limited phenomenon. [p. 27]

So are almost all other miracles. But I get what he is insinuating: this had to do with the sun: visible by millions. The miracle was not necessarily in the sun itself, but could have been merely in people’s perception of it. Either thing is miraculous and out of the ordinary. But the latter would explain why people all over the world didn’t see it. Many Protestants have made a similar analysis about the “sun standing still” miracle (?) with Joshua in the Old Testament.

In addition to the evidence for the miracle of the sun, there is a certain amount of evidence to the contrary. This takes different forms: i) The fact that the Vatican has withheld a formal endorsement of the miracle. If the Vatican isn’t prepared to stick its neck out, why should we? [p. 34]

This is simply the traditional slowness and reluctance of the Church to positively pronounce on alleged miracles: especially those that occur within an event that is part of private, rather than public revelation. It’s not the same thing as being outright skeptical of a miracle or “against” it: only taking proper precautions and being prudent. I contend that this is not, in fact, “evidence to the contrary,” as Hays puts it, anymore than Doubting Thomas’ reservation about believing that Jesus had risen was any sort of “evidence to the contrary” regarding Jesus’ resurrection.

He simply required a higher level of (empirical proof)  — and Jesus provided it, as it turned out. Likewise, the Church in her official capacity as judge of purported miracles is rightfully slower and desiring of relatively more evidence before making definitive pronouncements. In other words, the judgment of the entire Church is much different in character than the judgment or pious belief and acceptance of one person. It’s an altogether good thing that the Church is slow in these matters, seeing that there are indeed falsely alleged miracles and also demonic miracles, as Hays also noted. The Church wisely knows that belief in either is very harmful to the spiritual life and persons.

Conflicting reports of what was seen on October 13, 1917. [p. 34]

If in fact, the miracle was such that it occurred within each individual’s perception (as I’m strongly inclined to believe, because Marian apparitions are largely of the same nature: one person sees Mary and the next one doesn’t, etc.), then there could be differing accounts without undermining the actuality of the general phenomenon: experienced somewhat differently by various individuals.

Reports of repeated phenomena. This would not, of itself, undermine the factuality of the event. Rather, it would undermine the miraculosity of the event. For if the event is a natural phenomenon which is only miraculous due to its providential timing, then repetition undercuts the distinctive timing of the event. [p. 34]

Actually (in strict logic) it wouldn’t. The providential timing of the original occurrence still is what it is, and is valid, whether similar events happen later or not. As an analogy, I made the argument in my book about biblical archaeology, The Word Set in Stone (2023) that the parting of the Re[e]d Sea could have been a natural event, called a wind setdown, which has been discussed in scientific journals, and observed. If so, it was providential, in the sense that it occurred at precisely the time that it needed to occur, to save the fleeing Hebrews.

When God told Moses, “Lift up your rod, and stretch out your hand over the sea and divide it, that the people of Israel may go on dry ground through the sea” (Ex 14:16), God (being out of time and omniscient) knew that the natural event would happen at this particular time. This would make the parting (if this theory is correct), “miraculous due to its providential timing.” But do similar later events undermine the first one? No. It was what it was, and it was miraculous in the specific sense that Hays describes. In fact, there was another “water parting” forty years later: of the Jordan River (which I also argue was natural). But that has no “negative” bearing on the first event. 

Therefore, purported additional instances of persons seeing other strange manifestations in the sun not too long afterwards do not disprove in the slightest, the first well-known occurrence. If anything, they would reinforce it, being similar in nature. Hays tries very hard to cast doubt on the miracle with all these skeptical claims. But if each and every one is illogical and/or irrelevant (a non sequitur in logic), it matters not a whit how many there are. They simply miss the mark and accomplish nothing. This is the technique humorously described as continually throwing manure at a wall, hoping some will stick (employed also by lawyers burdened with a bad case, short on the facts and evidence.

Catholics are apt to treat the sun-miracle as genuine, Evangelicals as diabolical, secular sceptics as a paradigm-case of mass hallucination, and ufologists as a flying saucer. [p. 37]

Very true. We must examine the strength of the arguments made by those in all parties. Hays has certainly not proven that the miracle is “diabolical” so far, and I am quite confident that he will fail to do so altogether.

Due to the geographical confinement of the phenomena, the most plausible interpretation construes the event as a rare, but naturally occurring event. What would render it miraculous is the timing of the event, rather than the nature of the event. . . . According to reports, not everyone present even witnessed the miracle of the sun. [p. 38]

Again, Hays neglects the possibility of God changing the perceptions of persons, so that they see things that were not literally in the sun itself. It’s just as miraculous (though arguably not as spectacular or “earth-shaking” in nature). This is biblical, too. Mary Magdalene (“she . . .  saw Jesus standing, but she did not know that it was Jesus”: Jn 20:14) and the two disciples on the road to Emmaus (“And their eyes were opened and they recognized him”: Lk 24:31) didn’t recognize the risen Jesus at first. If God can miraculously cause people not to see things, He can also miraculously cause them to see extraordinary things that others do not or may not see.

Prior religious conditioning clearly had a shaping influence on the interpretation of the apparently numinous encounters. [p. 38]

That’s true of all reputed miracles, and also, I might add, of much of biblical interpretation and theology itself; so it proves (or disproves) nothing. One must still look at all relevant factors and the merits of the case.

Why would Mary predict the future, but bind the recipient to secrecy? To reveal a prediction after the fact undermines the evidential value of the oracle. Anyone can predict the future as soon as the future is past! [p. 38]

There are several  conceivable reasons. There is a thing called prudence: maybe it wasn’t good for everyone to know all the secrets immediately. Facts are often withheld from the public in order to avoid negative consequences. It may have been something akin to what Jesus told His disciples: “To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables” (Mk 4:11; cf. Mt 13:11; Lk 8:10). God (and God speaking through Mary) has His reasons for everything. Often, they are beyond our comprehension and understanding. The gospel itself was a “mystery which was kept secret for long ages” (Rom 16:25). Sometimes a prophecy is given to just one person, such as Samuel telling Saul that he was to die the next day in battle, or God telling Abraham that his descendants would number as many as the stars.

According to the Vatican, the apparitions at Fatima were subjective visions. Subjective visions, even if veridical for the recipient, are hardly veridical for a second party. [p. 38]

Exactly! That’s precisely why the Church makes a stark distinction between private and public revelations. The individual Catholic is not bound at all to accept private revelations. But some are relatively more “established” in the Catholic life and milieu than others, and these include the apparitions of Lourdes and Fatima. We are free to believe that these persons did indeed experience subjective visions, just as Paul did in the Bible:

2 Corinthians 12:1-4 . . . I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord. [2] I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven — whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows. [3] And I know that this man was caught up into Paradise — whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows — [4] and he heard things that cannot be told, which man may not utter.

Paul also heard the Lord speak to him at his dramatic conversion (Acts 9:4; 22:8), whereas his companions heard none of the words (22:9). this is in inspired Scripture, so the Christian must believe it, but say we had no Bible yet, and Paul told us this? Would we be strictly bound to accept it? Maybe not. But if we did, it would have to be strictly based on his word and trustworthy character, etc. We might argue that since he did other miracles, we can trust him for accurately reporting this one.

Private revelations can be delusive. [p. 38]

They can, and they can also be true, as in many revelations of this sort recorded in the Bible.

Private revelations lack the binding force of public revelation. [p. 38]

Yep, but again, that is a separate question from the evidence of the miracle occurring or not. This factor does not in an of itself work against the truthfulness of a purported occurrence.

Should an Evangelical take the position that God would never answer the prayer of a Catholic? I don’t see why. If God could bless an atheist, why not a Catholic? So even on the most uncharitable reading, I wouldn’t rule out the possibility of Catholic miracles—although we must still judge
the claim on a case-by-case basis. [pp. 42-43]

This is very good: open-minded and fair-minded. Credit where it is due . . . There are many Protestant thinkers who could and would never have written the above statement.

For example, another problem with the miracle of the sun is that if the purpose of this event was to attest Marian dogma, then it was a rather roundabout and ultimately ambiguous way of making the point. Would it not have been more to the point for Mary to simply put in a public appearance to 70,000 onlookers? Complete with photographers? There is, after all, no internal relation between the Virgin Mary and a solar phenomenon. So why choose such an oblique method of getting the message across? [p. 44]

Would it not have been more to the point for Jesus to simply put in a public appearance (in His resurrected state) to everyone in Jerusalem? Would it not have been more to the point for Jesus to put in many more public appearances and commence His ministry before the age of 30 or so? How many more people could have been reached?! But He chose not to. He spent almost all of His time for some thirty years with His parents. God has His reasons for everything. I may not understand why Mary didn’t do as Steve proposes. But I also don’t understand why Jesus didn’t do what seems to be analogous to Steve’s proposal. It’s a wash, in other words.

It’s better to accept mystery and our obvious limitations in spiritual matters and to not expect that we can explain all things pertaining to God and miracles (the error of hyper-rationalism). Paul desperately wanted God to take away his “thorn,” and asked Him three times to do so. God said no and that His “grace is sufficient” and never explained to Paul why and how. I’ll have lots of question for God and Paul and Mary and many others if and when I get to heaven (as a naturally curious and inquisitive person). But I will not belabor such questions in this life: especially not in public. I humbly bow to His infinite wisdom and thank Him for His amazing love and mercy and grace, recognizing my proper lowly place in the overall scheme of things.

If Hays wouldn’t be so skeptical about analogous biblical things concerning Jesus, he ought not be, by the same token, to purported apparitions of Mary and the miracle of the sun. Such reasoning is simply not a disproof of the alleged miracle. “Why doesn’t God [and those whom He uses for His purposes] do this or that?” rarely is a compelling argument.

In Deut[eronomy] 13:1-5, we have a programmatic statement regarding the relation between miracle and doctrine. [p. 45]

But the larger point is lies in the purpose of the miracle, as a test of faith. Regardless of whether the cause is directly attributable to God or the dark side, the overarching purpose is to test the spiritual allegiance of the covenant community. Are its members loyal to the true God, or false gods? [p. 46]

Let’s take a look at the passage he brings up:

If a prophet arises among you, or a dreamer of dreams, and gives you a sign or a wonder, [2] and the sign or wonder which he tells you comes to pass, and if he says, ‘Let us go after other gods,’ which you have not known, ‘and let us serve them,’ [3] you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or to that dreamer of dreams; for the LORD your God is testing you, to know whether you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. [4] You shall walk after the LORD your God and fear him, and keep his commandments and obey his voice, and you shall serve him and cleave to him. [5] But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has taught rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to make you leave the way in which the LORD your God commanded you to walk. So you shall purge the evil from the midst of you.

The only “doctrine” dealt with here that I see, is monotheism, which, of course, is completely agreed-upon by Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox (as well as Jews and Muslims). So that has no bearing on our present dispute. If Hays had found Sister Lucia saying that Mary told her that there is more than one God, then he would have a huge point, and Catholics would have to either reject the Fatima apparitions altogether, or (if they are thought to be true) become Protestants or Orthodox. Thankfully, Mary taught no such thing in these apparitions.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the miracle of the sun is a genuine miracle. Suppose, further, that it’s a Catholic miracle in the sectarian sense. If various features of Marian dogma (e.g. Assumption, immaculate conception, Mediatrix, Co-Redemptrix, Queen of Heaven, perpetual virginity [ante, in, et post partum]) are contrary to Scripture, then, according to Deut 13 and its NT counterparts, a Christian is obliged to reject the evidentiary status of the miracle. [p. 47]

Again, Deuteronomy 13 only discusses the blasphemous heresy of polytheism. In order for Hays’ point to hold, such passages would have to condemn all of the beliefs above that he rejects. Since they don’t, it’s much ado about nothing. Hays isn’t even in line with his own Protestant forebears. All of the first Protestant leaders accepted the perpetual virginity of Mary. That’s not insignificant. It’s highly significant. The first Protestants didn’t reject all of the Marian beliefs that they had received from Catholicism. Martin Luther accepted a form of the Immaculate Conception, Bullinger believed in the Assumption of Mary, etc. Most accepted calling her Theotokos (“God-bearer”) too.

All of these things have to be discussed individually. I could just as easily argue that if a Protestant gets up and preaches that the Bible teaches sola Scriptura and sola fide (which it never does!: and I endlessly demonstrate that in articles and books), that he should be rejected as a false prophet and expunged from the believing community. This leads us far astray from whether the miracle of the sun or the apparitions at Fatima occurred or not. Hays has provided no compelling reason to think that they did not. Here he’s simply engaging in almost emotional anti-Catholic polemics and rhetoric, knowing that it will get a rise out of Protestant readers (and hope that they won’t notice that the argument has no logical force at all; more sophistry . . .). I provide biblical argumentation for all of these beliefs on my Blessed Virgin Mary web page.

And a Christian is under no obligation to offer an alternative explanation. [p. 47]

That’s right. But if said Christian is seeking to argue that the miracle of the sun did not occur, then he will have his work cut out for him. I’ve seen nothing in his argumentation that would lead me to believe that it did not occur at all. It boils down to Hays having to believe that an articulate witness such as the scientist, Dr. Gonçalo de Almeida Garrett, was a raving lunatic. And that’s the last impression anyone would get in reading his report. This sort of skepticism resembles nothing more than those in the New Testament who said that Jesus cast out demons by Beelzebub (Mt 12:24) and had a demon Himself and was “mad” (Jn 10:20) — rather than simply accept the miracles that He performed.

He doesn’t have to explain what really happened. Or how it happened. Whether the witnesses were deceivers or self-deceived. [p. 48]

Perhaps that explains why Hays never disproved it. He gave us nothing to doubt our present beliefs as Catholics. And that’s how it always goes with his arguments! — as I am showing and will continue to show in this series.

Is Marian dogma contrary to Scripture? That’s a separate argument. It would take me too far afield to address that question. [p. 48]

I completely agree that it is  separate question and “far afield” from the present one. That’s absolutely correct. But Hays seemed not to realize that he just fatally undercut his effort to argue that the miracle of the sun couldn’t be accepted simply because it had associations with the dreaded Mary and all of those icky, cooties-laden Catholic Marian doctrines! He got way ahead of himself, was entirely carried away in his polemics and sophism (even considering the level of his usual deficiencies in this regard) and so started forgetting the logical chain of his argument.

On a final note, I’d like to thank Jason Engwer, John Frame, Gary Habermas, and Eric Svendsen for commenting on a brief, preliminary draft of this essay. [p. 49]

I’ll guarantee that he wouldn’t have thanked me for this commentary, even before he decided that I had an “evil character,” etc. He just wanted to hear from his fan club. He never was interested in an actual debate with me: only with toying and engaging in  sophistry and mockery. An actual intelligent, civil, point-by-point debate would have been a lot of fun, because it’s a lot of fun for me to take on his thoughts by myself. Everyone who loves theology loves theological challenges (well, almost everyone). Jason Engwer’s still out there writing anti-Catholic apologetics on the blog that Hays began. He could defend his old friend and reply to me. But he won’t. I reply to his articles quite a bit, but he utterly ignores my critiques. I think that’s very sad, and doesn’t indicate (to put it mildly and gently) that he possesses a robust confidence in his own beliefs or his ability to defend them under scrutiny.

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,200+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-one books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation InformationThanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***

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.

 

2023-05-15T10:25:25-04:00

Catholic Miracles Unfairly Criticized & Biblically Defended; St. Padre Pio; St. Joseph Cupertino

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, knowing full well my history of being condemned and vilified by other anti-Catholics (and his buddies) like James White, Eric Svendsen, and James Swan, 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. . . . The term “apostasy” carries with it a heavy presumption that the apostate is a hell-bound reprobate. I think it’s unwarranted to assume that all Catholics or converts to Catholicism are damned.

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 1: Miracles]

Parsing Catholic miracles

[T]e Martyrdom of Polycarp says he was fireproof when the Romans tried to burn him alive. Assuming that’s true, should that be classified as a Catholic miracle? [p. 16]

Yes.

Was Polycarp Roman Catholic? [p. 16]

Yes, of course.

Or is that an anachronistic designation? [p. 16]

Not at all. He was a member of the one true Church begun by Jesus, under the initial human leadership of St. Peter, and then under his successors to the papal office. That Church is demonstrably historically continuous to this day. Polycarp rejected sola Scriptura and sola fide (faith alone): the two “pillars” of the Protestant Revolution. He regarded Tobit, the Didache, and Ecclesiasticus as Holy Scripture. That’s either being simply a “Catholic” (as I would contend) or (as it seems anyone is obliged to hold) at the very least more Catholic than proto-“Protestant”, since he denied the two pillars which supposedly sum up the main tenets and distinctives of the Protestant revolt, which had to wait until 1362 years after his death.

He wasn’t Catholic in the sense that Ignatius Loyola was Catholic, or Matthias Joseph Scheeben–much less Joseph Ratzinger. [p. 16]

Of course he wasn’t. He lived in the first and second centuries. I could turn it around and say that “Hays wasn’t a Calvinist in the sense that John Calvin was a Calvinist.” But he was still a Calvinist! All those hundreds of years since Polycarp saw much development of doctrine and practice. That’s why he is different from the later figures, but it’s not an essential difference. It’s the difference between an acorn and an oak tree: the former develops inexorably into the latter, and the DNA was the same all along. The acorn is an oak tree in the making, or a “very young” oak tree, as it were.

Consider the cult of Padre Pio. There’s evidence that he used carbonic acid. If so, his stigmata might be the result of self-mutilation. [p. 17]

Prove it, then! Put your money where your mouth is! This is the constant unethical method of anti-Catholic polemicists: to throw out a serious charge but not to take enough time to document it and make the case on the grounds of factuality and plausibility: just as in any other form of honest research. Failing that, it’s simply gossip and rumormongering, which is clearly unethical. Some people will read something like this and never forget it, and never look into it to verify or disprove it. And if it’s false, it was bearing false witness on Hays’ part: a violation of one of the Ten Commandments.

Readers may wish to read a favorable report of St. Pio’s stigmata, and when they began. The date was September 20, 1918. The scurrilous claim is that St. Pio asked for the acid in the “summer of 1919,” some 9-10 months after his stigmata began. The acid could hardly have caused [what would then merely mimic] the stigmata, let alone promulgate a complete fakery. False accusations against St. Padre Pio (like those against Jesus and Paul) are nothing new.

Saints are often persecuted not only by anti-Catholics, but (sadly) by those in the Church. The Holy See in 1931 ordered St. Padre Pio to cease public ministry and offering Mass in public, cease hearing confessions, and to not make any public appearances. He was also accused by some of insanity and fraud. In 1960, the Vatican again restricted his public ministry based on the notion that his popularity had gotten out of control. In that year, one Fr. Carlo Maccari accused the 73-year-old Padre Pio of having sex with female penitents “twice a week.” Fr. Maccari later admitted that he had lied and asked for forgiveness in a public recantation on his deathbed in 1961. St. Pio’s stigmata wounds completely vanished three days before he died.

In principle, some eucharistic miracles might be staged. A homemade communion wafer with ingredients designed to have a chemical reaction that simulates blood when immersed in wine. Or actual human blood could be one of the ingredients. [p. 17]

Yes, maybe so. But this proves absolutely nothing with regard to purported miracles of this sort that produced verified human blood and had strict controls against manipulation by unscrupulous folks. The presence of a counterfeit dollar bill doesn’t disprove all genuine dollar bills. This is not an argument. It’s simply a statement of the obvious truism that there are people out there who may try to fake miracles for a thrill or money or anti-Catholic motives; on a dare, whatever!

The miracles attributed to St. Joseph Copertino include levitation, psychokinesis, poltergeist activity, and materialization of objects. Even if genuine, there’s nothing specifically Christian about that phenomena. . . . there’s nothing specifically divine about such phenomena. If genuine, it’s more like a supernatural stunt. They fail to exhibit divine wisdom, justice, mercy, holiness, and truth. We’d expect a divine miracle to have a certain dignity or fittingness. Not just be something weird or frivolous. From what I’ve read, there’s a connection between possession and levitation. [pp. 17-18]

This is a rather bizarre argument. How is “materialization of objects” different in essence from Jesus multiplying the loaves and the fish? Did not Jesus materialize those two things, in abundance? Was that miracle not “specifically Christian”? Was it not “divine”: having been done by the express will of Jesus, Who is God? Should it be properly described as a “supernatural stunt”? What in the world was Hays thinking here? Or was he not thinking at all when he made the charges, in his ever-present prejudice against Catholicism? Did the feeding of the five and four thousand not exhibit divine wisdom, justice, mercy, holiness, and truth”? Did it lack “dignity” and “fittingness”? Was it “weird or frivolous”? Talk about rhetorical overkill! We’re gonna see it a lot, believe me, folks, as I go through this book. All of these terms, by direct analogy, would apply to the two feeding miracle-events. Thus, Hay’s argument collapses in a spectacular reductio ad absurdum.

The same reductio amply applies to his bashing of “levitation” as well (which he associates — obviously “poisoning the well” — with “possession”: a nice touch there). That involves a person going up into the air in a supernatural fashion. Elijah did that (with the extra spectacle of a chariot and fire). Our Lord Jesus ascended (I visited the spot in 2014). At the Second Coming, millions of the elect will be “caught up . . . in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air” (1 Thess 4:17). The “two witnesses” of Revelation (11:3) were dead, but then “a breath of life from God entered them, and they stood up on their feet, and great fear fell on those who saw them. Then they heard a loud voice from heaven saying to them, ‘Come up hither!’ And in the sight of their foes they went up to heaven in a cloud” (Revelation 11:11-12).

That’s four scriptural instances of “ascensions” of one sort or another. Certainly these events were more lacking in “dignity” and “fittingness” and “weird or frivolous” than mere levitation, which is a very small analogy to an ascension. Therefore, if instances of levitation are regarded in this hostile fashion, how is it that the four biblical ascensions are not? What is the big difference? Well, the only one that is worth mentioning is that the one thing is said to be specifically “Catholic” and the others aren’t. Therefore, the scorn and derision is heaped on the Catholic miracle, with complete hypocrisy and a double standard (certainly not utilizing reason). When severe bias is always in the picture, this is the sort of incoherent “reasoning” we see. It’s equal parts pitiful and pathetic.

Moreover, “psychokinesis” is the moving of objects by mental activity alone. We have no problem finding many biblical parallels to this, too: Jesus calming the waves and the storm, and causing Lazarus to be raised and to walk out of his tomb, and legs suddenly being able to walk, the stone in front of Jesus’ tomb moving away from the entrance, etc. This means that all the name-calling that Hays made about this and the other “Catholic” miracles should consistently be applied to the analogous biblical events that are even more dramatic and unusual.

As for “poltergeist activity” (noisy or frivolous ghosts), Scripture is filled with that, too, or at least things highly akin or similar. We have Samuel the prophet (not an impersonating demon!, as some claim) appearing to Saul, Moses and Elijah appearing and talking to Jesus at His transfiguration, the two witnesses of Revelation 11, “many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep” who “were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many” (Mt 27:52-53). We have Jesus in effect walking through a wall to appear to His disciples after His resurrection. He eats fish with them. He closes the eyes of witnesses Mary Magdalene and the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, then reveals to them His identity. We have an angel wrestling with Jacob. Are all these phenomena “weird or frivolous” and all the other nonsense that Hays spews about Catholic miracles?

I have provided biblical analogies for all four things he brought up. His rather weak and insubstantial “argument” has now been utterly demolished and pulverized, if I do say so.

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,200+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-one books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation InformationThanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***

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.

2023-05-14T15:52:17-04:00

6-10,000-Year-Old Universe (?); “Myths” in Genesis; Straw Men; Protestant Scholarly “Authorities”; Exorcism; Symbolic Interpretation of Scripture

The late Steve Hays (1959-2020) was a Calvinist (and anti-Catholic) writer, who was very active on his blog, called Triablogue (now continued by Jason Engwer). His 695-page self-published book, Catholicism — which appears to simply be a collection of his articles on his site — has graciously been made available there for free. This is one of many planned critiques of that book. Rather than list them all in individual sections, 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 1: Miracles]

Speaking for myself, I rarely attended Sunday school as a kid. I wasn’t raised on a cartoon version of the flood narrative. Likewise, many people come to the Christian faith as adults. They had no Christian upbringing. [p. 5]

It should be noted, however (speaking of “cartoon” versions of things), that Hays was a young-earther: typically a position held by biblical fundamentalists. In a post called “Dawkins Postmortem” (10-22-06), he wrote: “The universe is between 6000-10,000 years old, give or take.” He noted that he held this view “with certain qualifications” but they are not such as to change the essential position. Note that I am not asserting that he himself was a fundamentalist, based on this consideration alone; only that it is in fact held mostly by biblical fundamentalists, who interpret the Bible much more literally than most reputable Bible scholars among all the various sorts of Christians. Hays was operating within a certain paradigm, at any rate — whatever it was –, as we all do.

The origin of Jericho as an established city has been dated to 8,000 BC (many scholars regard it as the oldest city in the world): at which time it already had “a massive stone wall around the settlement, strengthened at one point at least by a massive stone tower” (Encyclopaedia Britannica, “Jericho”). That would mean that it was in place at about the same time that Hays thinks (if we adopt his older date) the entire universe began. And there were developments of the city (“a long period of settlement”) up to a thousand years before the universe began, according to Hays: quite a feat!

Catholic Cognitive Dissonance [p. 5: subtitle]

Citing a Catholic who referred to “biblical literalists,” Hays polemically shot back with, “Well, Catholics are literalists when it comes to the Bread of Life discourse (John 6).” [p. 5] Yes, quite true. The issue in such matters is whether it is warranted to interpret a text literally or symbolically, allegorically, or as an example of hyperbole and many other non-literal forms of expression that are found throughout the Bible. The exegete needs to determine the literary nature of any given biblical text. I’ve written at length about how there are insuperable exegetical problems if one interprets John 6 (i.e., the second part of it) non-literally. See, for example: John 6: Literal Eucharist Interpretation (Analogical Cross-Referencing and Insufficient Counter-Arguments) [8-15-09].

Hays noted the words of Ven. Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis [1950], about the book of Genesis, and immediately set out to caricature the pope’s words and to distort his actual thoughts and intentions (something, sadly, that he habitually did in his apologetics, as I will show time and again in this series):

i) To say Gen 1-11 is metaphorical rather than historical is a rearguard action. That reflects the triumph of modernism in contemporary Catholicism. It’s certainly not the traditional view of Gen 1-11. [p. 7]

But of course, Pius XII didn’t express this heretical notion in the first place (one notes that Hays didn’t document him actually doing this). Pius XII and the Church herself are very clear about this: the early chapters of Genesis are historical in nature, but expressed in a semi-mythical, very primitive literary form, that we know little about. Pope Pius XII wrote in this Encyclical:

[T]he first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense, . . . (38; my italics and bolding)

Therefore, whatever of the popular narrations have been inserted into the Sacred Scriptures must in no way be considered on a par with myths or other such things, which are more the product of an extravagant imagination than of that striving for truth and simplicity which in the Sacred Books, also of the Old Testament, is so apparent that our ancient sacred writers must be admitted to be clearly superior to the ancient profane writers. (39; my italics and bolding)

So we have what a pope actually expressed, then we see how Hays twisted and distorted it, so that he could set forth a straw man mythical version (here’s where the true myth lies!) of what the Catholic Church teaches. The first task of the honest researcher, on the other hand, is to accurately document what his or her opponent’s position is. The above distortions of our beliefs are simply not honest. Hays was too sharp of a guy to be that ignorant. This was deliberate distortion. A sentient being with brain cells and a rudimentary understanding of logic and grammar (and a sense of fair play and intellectual honesty) can’t possibly read Pius XII’s words in Humani Generis and summarize them as expressing the notion thatGen[esis] 1-11 is metaphorical rather than historical.”

ii) Scholars who deny the historicity of Gen 1-11, or treat it as metaphorical, don’t suddenly view the rest of the Pentateuch as historical. Scholars who take that view of Gen 1-11 don’t think the patriarchal narratives, or Exodus, or wilderness account, constitute a record of human experiences in living memory, based directly on eyewitness testimony, interviews with eyewitnesses. [p. 7]

I agree. These are the liberal dissidents and dissenters that all Christian communions are “blessed” with. The difference in the Catholic Church is that we have an authoritative magisterium (pope and ecumenical councils) that can resolve theological issues and controversies once and for all. Protestants (and even Orthodox) have no such thing. All they can do is take head count of scholars, which accomplishes nothing and is a form of the ad populum fallacy (“lots of folks — and the smart people — believe x, therefore x must be true”).

Hays, quite often, trots out names of the “usual suspect” Catholic liberal dissidents and presents their views, as if they reflect actual Catholic defined, magisterial teaching. They do not. Catholic scholars are not our authorities in the way that Protestant scholars function, as an ersatz “authority” in Protestantism. And the latter do that because they have to “fill” the void left by the Protestant institutional and theological rejection of ecumenical councils and the papacy and authoritative apostolic tradition and apostolic succession, and they can’t possibly do so. The strong Protestant tendency (easily demonstrated from the sad history of their endless denominations) is for these scholars to keep getting more and more anti-traditional and theologically liberal (even in the Protestant sense) and for entire denominations to follow their lead and walk right over the cliff.

Hays at this point switched on a dime and started discussing Catholic Mariology (anti-Catholics generally are notorious for irrational and/or deliberately evasive topic-switching), exorcism and Catholic belief in the Real, Substantial Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.

Why not interpret “Mary’s real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth” as mythical or metaphorical language? [p. 8]

Because it was part and parcel of the miracle of the virgin birth of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. We believe that He was so special (as God the Son and God Incarnate that even the birth process itself was miraculous in a unique way. When God the Son is being born, that is an event unique in the history of the world: a one-time event that will never happen again. And we believe that this was entirely proper and “fitting.”
Recently I made a biblical study of the latter concept, that is often mocked by Protestants.

Why not interpret demonic possession and exorcism as an archaic way of expressing a deeper content? [p. 8]

Simply because demons are very real and harmful creatures, just as the devil is. Catholics believe in these things, which is why we are virtually the only Christians to take exorcism seriously: something that inexorably follows from Jesus actually commanding the disciples to “cast out demons” (Mt 10:8; Mk 3:15; 16:17). After following Jesus’ orders, the disciples exclaimed like good little exorcists: “Lord, even the demons are subject to us in your name!” (Lk 10:17). Yes they are.

But Hays (on p. 41) calls his own view “semicessationist”: meaning that “God now works miracles directly or individually, rather than working through an official intermediary (e.g. apostle, prophet, healer).” It follows logically that no Christian today can exercise the prerogative that Catholic exorcists do: to cast out demons. Only God can do that. The problem is that this novel idea is a mere “Protestant tradition of men” that isn’t found in the Bible anywhere, which explains why Hays never attempts to defend it from the Bible, in his discussion of it on pages 40-42.

Instead, he disagrees with another Protestant tradition of men from a fellow Calvinist: good ol’ Benjamin Warfield’s even more extreme complete cessationism. And so he continues the proud Protestant tradition of never-ending internal dissension (that can never be decisively resolved within their rule of faith and worldview), while we seek to follow our Lord’s express injunctions in Holy Scripture and help poor souls to be freed from horrific demonic possession. Which is more biblical: dissensions that are roundly condemned by Paul ten times or more, or liberating human beings from oppressing and possessing demons? Which pleases God more? Which is more loving and Christlike?

Why not interpret the claim that “the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained” in a wafer as mythical or metaphorical? [p. 8]

Because the exegesis of John 6 doesn’t logically or theologically permit such an interpretation, as I explained in an article linked above. The symbolic standpoint is utterly incoherent and self-defeating.

Why not treat the Assumption of Mary as a metaphor? [p. 8]

Because if in fact the Blessed Virgin Mary was granted an entirely unmerited, gratuitous gift by God of being without original sin, then the absence of bodily decay after death (which came from original sin) leads logically to an immediate bodily resurrection, graphically expressed by her being bodily assumed into heaven.

Why not treat Marian apparitions like Fatima as mythical or metaphorical? [p. 8]

Because there were eyewitnesses of the apparitions, and associated miracles (like the miracle of the sun), and healings: none of which are merely mythical or metaphorical; they’re quite real, just as witnesses of Jesus’ resurrection experienced real, tangible events (with Thomas even touching Jesus’ physical wounds), and Jesus eating fish after His resurrection.

Devout Catholic intellectuals are by turns skeptical and superstitious. Rationalistic and fideistic. [p. 8]

This is sheer nonsense (complete with one of Hays’ trademark incomplete sentences), as just shown. The orthodox Catholic exercises faith, as all Christians do and must, but it’s a rational faith, based in part on evidences from reason, not a blind faith.

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,200+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-one books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation InformationThanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***

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.

Follow Us!



Browse Our Archives