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

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

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

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

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

*****

[Chapter 8: Canonics]

The gates of hell shall not prevail

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Feser fizzles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I also cited F. F. Bruce in agreement:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can we be sure?

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

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

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

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

***

***

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

*****

[Chapter 7: Hermeneutics]

Reading Scripture in community

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Bible and the Church

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

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

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

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

Communal reading

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

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

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

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

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

Paul wrote:

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

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

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

[Chapter 8: Canonics]

An inspired table of contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

Speaking of St. Robert Bellarmine, Hays opines:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I just showed how it is.

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

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

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

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

***

***

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

*****

[Chapter 5: Convert Syndrome]

The gingerbread house-part 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The gingerbread house-part 3

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

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

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

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

The gingerbread house-part 4

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

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

The gingerbread house-part 6

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

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

[Chapter 6: Development of Doctrine]

No hard feelings, right?

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

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

Limbo was never established doctrine. See:

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

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

Cardinal Müller on Catholicism and Protestantism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

St. John Cardinal Newman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rome’s clouded crystal ball

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

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

***

***

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

***

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

St. Vincent Lerins & Development; Catholicism & Suicide; Subjective Mortal Sin; Immaculate Conception: Necessary or “Fitting”?; Catholic Converts & Philosophers; Spiritual Experiences; Holy Church in Scripture

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

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

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

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

*****

[Chapter 5: Convert Syndrome]

To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant

[H]e [Cardinal Newman] rejects the Vincentian canon. He repudiates the threefold criterion of catholicity as a hyperbolic idealization. It’s quite ironic that the man who said “To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant” is the very same man whose appeal to historical theology flunks the triple test of antiquity, unanimity, and ecumenicity. Moral of the story: a Catholic convert or apologist has to choose between two divergent slogans: “To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant” or “What has been believed everywhere, always, and by all”, for Vincentian continuity is antithetical to the theory of development. [p. 194]

Here Hays reveals his profound, stupefied ignorance of development of doctrine: both its nature and the fact that Vincent of Lerins was undeniably the very Church father who wrote the most explicitly about — and in favor of — development of doctrine (in his Commonitorium). He didn’t see it as contrary to his dictum at all. He held both concepts together in harmony, in this one work of his. So did St. Cardinal Newman, and so does the Catholic Church. Protestant Church historian Philip Schaff wrote along these lines:

St. Vincent stated:

The growth of religion in the soul must be analogous to the growth of the body, which, though in process of years it is developed and attains its full size, yet remains still the same. There is a wide difference between the flower of youth and the maturity of age; yet they who were once young are still the same now that they have become old, insomuch that though the stature and outward form of the individual are changed, yet his nature is one and the same, his person is one and the same. (Commonitorium, XXIII)

Weathercock apologetics

To take another example, traditionally, suicide was treated as a damnatory sin. According to the Baltimore Catechism: “It is a mortal sin to destroy one’s own life or commit suicide, as this act is called, and persons who willfully and knowingly commit such an act die in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of Christian burial.” [this is from some version after 1885. It’s not in the original version]

But the post-Vatican II Catechism of the Catholic Church introduces eventuating circumstances that mitigate the guilt of suicide. [p. 195]

The original 1885 version of the Baltimore Catechism delineated the difference between mortal and venial sin:

54. Q. What is mortal sin? A. Mortal sin is a grievous offense against the law of God.

57. Q. What is venial sin? A. Venial sin is a slight offense against the law of God in matters of less importance; or in matters of great importance it is an offense committed without sufficient reflection or full consent of the will. (Baltimore Catechism No. 1, 1885)

Note that there are three elements required for one to be personally or subjectively (as Catholics say) guilty of mortal sin:

1) a matter of “great importance” (or what we usually call “grave matter”),

2) “sufficient reflection,”

and

3) “full consent of the will.”

Failing any or all of those, the sin is not subjectively mortal. Suicide in and of itself (as a species of murder) is an objectively mortal sin, but a person may not be subjectively guilty: the type of deeper sin and guilt that places them in danger of separation from God and indeed eternal hellfire.

In other words, there was always this understanding of mortal and venial sin in Catholicism, and thus, it’s too simplistic to say that Church taught or teaches that “anyone who commits suicide goes to hell.” That was true in 1885 Catholicism and is just as true today. There simply is no contradiction, as Hays vainly wished and/or mistakenly thought was the case. Hays claimed that the new Catechism “introduces” these distinctions that I just explained. This is the sort of sophistry and (deliberate or not) intellectual dishonesty that he constantly exhibited. The Catechism of the Catholic Church stated:

2282 . . . Grave psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship, suffering, or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one committing suicide.

2283 We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives. By ways known to him alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance. The Church prays for persons who have taken their own lives.

#2282 outlines the sort of thing that would reduce this sin from subjectively mortal to venial. It simply goes into more depth than the old Catechism, but doesn’t contradict it. If someone is suffering from “grave psychological disturbances” or “anguish” or “grave fear of hardship” or “torture” etc., then it can cause them to act contrary to the full consent of their will and sufficient reflection on what they are doing. Either of those things “diminishes” their “responsibility” and hence the necessity of being damned for mortal sin.

Accordingly, the Baltimore Catechism used the description of a person “willfully and knowingly” committing this sin. That refers to “full consent of the will” and “sufficient reflection” which would cause them to die in a state of mortal sin. But failing these things, they do not die in subjective mortal sin, and there is hope for their salvation (noted by the new Catechism in #2283).

Again, nothing whatsoever has changed. If Hays wanted to argue that venial and mortal sin was some new concept at Vatican II, he was free to do that. That’s the only way I can see that he could have plausibly charged “reversal of doctrine!” Otherwise, this is a bunch of hot air and unworthy and erroneous, ignorant speculation.

Bryan’s stalled chess game

If the mother of Jesus must be immaculately conceived so that she doesn’t transmit original sin to Jesus, then the same principle applies to the mother of Mary, and Mary’s grandmother, and great-grandmother, &c. [p. 211]

But this is not Catholic teaching, which holds that Mary’s Immaculate Conception was not necessary per se, but rather, “fitting.” God performed an act of special and unique grace at her conception that had nothing whatsoever to do with her mother or grandmother or father. See my papers:

Mary’s Immaculate Conception: Necessary or “Fitting”? [12-8-17]

Lucas Banzoli Wars Against Mariological Straw Men (Was Mary Full of Grace and Therefore Sinless? And If So, Was This Necessary or Only “Fitting”?) [9-9-22]

Svendsen’s Dissertation on Mary: 1. Preliminaries (Including Explicit Biblical Indications or Analogies for Mary’s Universal Intercession and the Notion of “Fittingness”) [2-2-23]

Conversely, if God can simply intervene to prevent the transmission of original sin, then Mary’s immaculate conception is superfluous, [p. 211]

Nothing God does is “superfluous.” He deemed it appropriate and fitting that the Mother of God the Son was freed from all actual and original sin. He simply made her the “New Eve” by His grace.

because God could skip over Mary by to intervene one step further down the line at the conception of Jesus. [p. 211]

Sure, He could have. He could have done many different things. He could have created life on Mars instead of earth. But this is what He did, and as a result, the angel Gabriel said to Mary: “Hail, full of grace.”

Short of divine revelation, how would anyone be in a position to know that Mary was immaculately conceived? Where’s the evidence that such a revelation was ever given? [p. 211]

Luke 1:28 and the use of the word kecharitomene (“full of grace” contains the essence of the doctrine (Mary’s sinlessness). Scriptural analogies include many others who were sanctified in the womb (e.g., Jeremiah and John the Baptist).

To whom? [p. 211]

St. Luke. Pious reflection and development through the centuries brought about the compete doctrine

To all appearances, the immaculate conception is a legend that hardened into dogma. [p. 211]

Biblical revelation isn’t “legend.” Nor is legitimate doctrinal development the “harden[ing]” of legend.  Hays is looking at the wrong topic. Sola Scriptura and sola fide are the legends that are completely absent from Scripture; hence, not based on revelation but rather, arbitrary extrabiblical traditions of men. Martin Luther only adopted sola Scriptura as a desperate ploy or last resort, having been backed into it by the rigors of a formal debate: the Leipzig Disputation of 1519.

[T]he immaculate conception . . . [is] not based on good historical evidence but raw church authority. Indeed, an ecclesiastical fiat is a necessary makeweight to compensate for the lack of credible historical evidence. [p. 214]

The visitation of Mary by the angel Gabriel is historical, and it happened in Nazareth. We know this from revelation (Luke 1:28). Sola Scriptura is not based on good biblical evidence but rather, arbitrary Protestant rejection of the infallibility of apostolic tradition and Church authority. Indeed, Martin Luther’s desperation and being caught on “the horns of a dilemma” in a debate in 1519 was a necessary makeweight to compensate for the lack of credible biblical evidence.

The less and the lightest

Even assuming that these are the best and the brightest, we have to examine the arguments. [p. 215]

Why didn’t Hays do that, then? I haven’t seen him examine even one conversion testimony in depth, point-by-point. He mentioned Surprised by Truth: the 1994 bestseller edited by Patrick Madrid that contained eleven conversion stories, including my own. But he didn’t take on even one of them. He simply fired potshots from the woods and then scurried deeper into the woods and to the hills, lest he be subject to devastating counter-replies. This was his constant pathetic method.

Aren’t conversion stories to Catholicism pretty much interchangeable? [p. 215]

No. Quite the contrary.

To my knowledge, Reformed seminaries don’t generally have courses on how to respond to Catholic apologetics. [p. 215]

I guess not, judging by the pathetic counter-“arguments” offered up, even by anti-Catholicism’s “best and brightest” like James White, James Swan, Eric Svendsen, Jason Engwer, and Steve Hays. So that explains it . . .

Peter Geach and Elizabeth Anscombe were two of the very brightest converts, but I don’t think either one ever made a sustained case for Roman Catholicism. [p. 215]

Precisely because they were philosophers, not apologists. They don’t necessarily have to do that, nor should we expect them to. They might have done it, though, had they chosen that course. Hays conveniently neglects Peter Kreeft, one of the most brilliant Catholic apologists of our time, who extensively defends Catholicism and writes apologetics. He’s a professional philosopher. Hays mentions him derisively on p. 236 and claims that he “recycle[s] all the boilerplate arguments you encounter in Catholic apologists who are not trained philosophers.” Again on page 244, he writes condescendingly, “Does Kreeft bother to do the most rudimentary research?”

This is typical of Hays’ non-substantive, utterly non-comprehensive, surfacey, unserious treatments of anyone he disagreed with. Kreeft has written more than 78 books of apologetics, including defenses of Catholicism. Hays going after him in a juvenile, patronizing fashion is a bit like trying to overcome a tank with a squirt gun.

Hays mentions Francis Beckwith, another philosopher who has written some apologetics, 14 times in his book, and he gets the same snobbish, petulant, superficial treatment; for example, “Francis Beckwith is fond of these cute little quips. But they’re intellectually shallow” (p. 461). Such a description is far more applicable to Hays himself. Projection, methinks?

Alexander Pruss is arguably the smartest Catholic philosopher of his generation, but while he sometimes toys with ingenuous defenses of Transubstantion [sic], I haven’t seen him defend Catholicism in general. [p. 215]

He’s under no obligation to do so, being a philosopher. The people who do this — and can be reasonably expected to do so — are professional Catholic apologists like myself (I have over 4,300 articles online, and have authored or edited 51 books, including over twenty with “real” publishers, unlike Hays). But Hays had no time to seriously interact with my work (though he rather warmly complimented me at first).

Bas van Fraassen is a brilliant philosopher of science who takes some inept potshots at sola Scriptura in one of his books, but that’s about it. Copleston debated Ayer and Russell on God’s existence, but despite his prolific outlook I don’t recall his writing a book or essay in defense of Roman Catholicism. Indeed, towards the end of his life he was quite skeptical. [p. 215]

Ditto to my previous responses. This is just silly. As an apologist who devotes himself to such things, I wrote two books about sola Scriptura alone (both published in 2012). I didn’t see Hays ever interact with those. If he wanted vigorous, in-depth argumentation on that important topic of contention, I certainly offered it (agree or disagree). But Hays had no interest in actual serious dialogue and interaction with opposing viewpoints. By then, he was too busy characterizing me as an “an evil character,” “ego-maniac, narcissist,” “self-idolater,” “hack who pretends to be a professional apologist,” “schizophrenic,” “emotionally unhinged,” etc.

While not in the same league as Pruss, Ed Feser is a very smart convert. But to my knowledge, Feser spends most of his time defending Thomism. [p. 216]

Since Thomism is a respectable Catholic position, then this is a Catholic philosopher doing Catholic apologetics. Even when Hays discovers an example of this, he finds an absurd way to deride it. This would be like contending, “Hays is a very smart Protestant. But to my knowledge, he spends most of his time defending Calvinism.” Is that not still Protestant apologetics? Of course it is (Calvinism being a species of Protestantism). It’s just one particular brand. Folks can’t do everything. They usually specialize.

The brightest Catholic Bible scholars like Raymond Brown, Joseph Fitzmyer, John Meier, and John Collins subvert traditional Catholic positions. [p. 216]

This exactly verifies a criticism I made in one of the earlier replies. At least he was honest about it in this instance. Hays classifies Catholic dissidents as the “brightest Catholic Bible scholars.” This is the cynical, wrongheaded, fatuous game that he constantly played. He couldn’t bring himself to classify orthodox Catholic scholars in such a way. They get the treatment that he gave Peter Kreeft, or Scott Hahn, who is mentioned only once in the book and put down, along with G. K. Chesterton, Thomas Merton, Malcolm Muggeridge, Richard John Neuhaus, Frank Sheed, Adrienne von Speyr, and Evelyn Waugh, as “Popularizers. Retail salesmen rather than wholesale thinkers” (p. 181). Hays was, sad to say, almost perpetually a pompous ass.

I myself was put in the same boat as Scott Hahn (I’m honored!) and caricatured and put down by Hays in a hit piece dated 9-14-06:

[M]any Evangelical immigrants to Rome bring along a certain amount of contraband theology stashed away in their luggage. As I’ve observed in the past, they are often far more conservative than cradle Catholics or the clergy. Indeed, they’re often at odds with their adopted denomination. So guys like Dave Armstrong and Scott Hahn present an artificially Evangelicalized version of Roman Catholicism. . . . they end up with a sterile hybrid theology that isn’t consistently Catholic or Protestant.

Hays wrote in the combox about Scott Hahn:

At this point I don’t remember what all I have or have not read of Hahn. But I don’t read Catholic popularizers and lay apologetes to learn about Catholic theology. I read them to study the bad arguments for Catholicism.

He did another ridiculous comparison of myself and Scott Hahn and indulged in fantastic flights of fancy in a post dated 5-12-05:

Hahn and Armstrong . . . [are] trying to carve out a little niche within the church. Theirs is a church within the church. This is not Roman Catholicism, but an inner schism–a homegrown chapel within the Church of Rome. . . . 

There’s quite a difference between a group which pays lip-service to the magisterium while going its own way, and one that publicly defies the magisterium. My allegation is that Armstrong is schismatic in the first sense, not the second.

Hays attacked and caricatured Scott Hahn again on 5-26-07:

If there’s one word to summarize his method, it’s “equivocation.” He often engages in prooftexting, but the actual meaning of the text always falls short of what he needs it to mean, which is why he then takes refuge in the church fathers—which is not to say that his use of the church fathers is necessarily any better. . . . we need to keep our eye on the constant gear-shifting, as he goes from what the Bible really says to his idiosyncratic interpretations and fallacious inferences. . . . 

[H]is characterization of Roman Catholicism is utterly tendentious. . . . Hahn mouths a lot of formulaic phrases without given any thought to the nonsense he’s mouthing. . . . 

A reader who relied on Hahn for his knowledge of Catholicism would have no idea what a skewed picture he’s getting. Hahn poses as a representative of Catholic dogma, but his exegetical argumentation is hardly representative of mainstream Catholicism. . . . a retrograde convert and soapbox polemicist . . . 

And here’s another typical Hays attack on yours truly (dated 7-19-04):

Every now and then I tune into Dave Armstrong’s RC website to see what’s new, if anything, in this alternative universe. . . . In a sense, then, Armstrong and his cobelligerents have never really converted to Catholicism at all. Instead, they’ve founded their own little private Victorian Catholic cult, with Newman, Knox, Belloc, Chesterton, and Tolkien as their patron saints–whereas the real Roman Catholicism is represented by the likes of Rahner and Raymond Brown. Theirs is not official Catholicism, but a treehouse for child actors. This is Oreo cookie Catholicism–Popish on the outside, but schismatic on the inside.

Hays attacked Hahn and Karl Keating as “fluffy, bantamweight popularizers” on 8-8-08. On 8-24-08, I was lumped in with Keating, and Hays described us as “Internet popes . . . These are Catholics who don’t’ even study Catholic scholarship. Part of the problem is that a lot of Catholic laymen aren’t intellectuals. So they don’t read serious historical or exegetical literature. They only read popularizers. Or watch EWTN.” 

He attacks Catholic apologist Bryan Cross (even after doing quite a bit of analysis of his arguments), saying, “Bryan’s theological method is a priori and ahistorical rather than exegetical. Bryan is in love with his own mind.” [p. 235]

Bishop Robert Barron, no mean apologist, in addition to his theological education, earned a Master’s Degree in philosophy. Does that cause Hays to give him any credit in this book, and treat him with rudimentary respect? No:

Barron is an eloquent, seductive mythmaker. His biblical prooftexts for Catholicism detach the text from the original meaning, and reattachment it to “development”. Once theology is cut off from the sacred text, it takes on a life of its own, in ever-bolder flights of fantasy. The exercise has a snowball effect, as seminal errors accumulate and magnify. No longer constrained by the reality of revelation, it goes wherever imagination takes it. 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]

***

Newman is an exception, but an ironic exception. Newman didn’t really convert to Roman Catholicism. Rather, Newman converted (or subverted) Roman Catholicism to himself. He redefined tradition to bend Catholicism to his own predilections. He changed the thing he converted to, so that Newman’s Catholicism is Newman’s face in the mirror. [p. 216]

Right. This is merely stupid, clueless, and idiotic, and deserves no further response. Heaven help my patience. It’s hanging by a string at this point.

Turning to Catholicism–1

It isn’t necessary for Christians to get it all right in this life–because this life isn’t all there is. I can make innocent mistakes in this life which will be rectified in the world to come. [p. 220]

This is an excellent argument for purgatory!

Turning to Catholicism–2

[S]ome of the contributors find the doctrine of the real presence to be emotionally compelling. At that level, there’s nothing to refute because it
isn’t based on reason, evidence, or exegesis, but felt-needs. [p. 236]

Oh, you mean like John Calvin’s rationale for believing in Holy Scripture, which is likewise not “based on reason, evidence, or exegesis”?:

Let this point therefore stand: those whom the Holy Spirit has inwardly taught truly rest upon Scripture, and that Scripture indeed is self-authenticated; hence it is not right to subject it to proof and reasoning. And the certainty it deserves with us, it attains by the testimony of the Spirit. For even if it wins reverence for itself by its own majesty, it seriously affects us only when it is sealed upon our hearts through the Spirit. Therefore, illumined by his power, we believe neither by our own nor by anyone else’s judgment that Scripture is from God; but above human judgment we affirm with utter certainty (just as if we were gazing upon the majesty of God himself) that it has flowed to us from the very mouth of God by the ministry of men. We seek no proofs, no marks of genuineness upon which our judgment may lean; but we subject our judgment and wit to it as to a thing far beyond any guesswork! (Institutes of the Christian Religion, I. vii. 1, 2, 5, John T. McNeill, ed., trans. Ford Lewis Battles, Philadelphia: Westminster Press)

Turning to Catholicism-5

Catholics have a schizoid ecclesiology. They bifurcate “the Church” into two divergent churches: on the one hand is the church that does all the bad stuff. The church with all the corruption, contradictions, and blunders. On the other hand is the spotless Bride of Christ. The pure, indefectible, infallible church. [p. 242]

The Bible has a schizoid ecclesiology. It bifurcates “the Church” into two divergent churches: on the one hand is the church that does all the bad stuff. The church with all the corruption, contradictions, and blunders. On the other hand is the spotless Bride of Christ. The pure, indefectible, infallible church:

A straightforward reading of Paul’s chastisement of the Corinthians lends itself to the view that problems were massive: definitely a majority of the believers there, if not a near-unanimity. This church had some heavy-duty problems!:

1) His rebuke concerning their divisiveness (1 Cor 3:1-4) seems to be directed at the group as a whole, not just a few.

2) The incest spoken of in 1 Corinthians 5:1-2 was of one man, yet the whole body is rebuked for not having “mourn[ed]” that, and for failing to “remove” the incorrigible sinner.

3) Likewise concerning bringing lawsuits into the secular arena. Paul says, “Can it be that there is no man among you wise enough to decide between members of the brotherhood . . .?” (1 Cor 6:5).

4) Likewise with divisions and abuses of the Lord’s Supper (“each one”: 1 Cor 11:21). This is a general rebuke, directed towards practically all the members, not a dissenting minority.

5) Finally, in 2 Corinthians 11:4, Paul speaks of the church as a whole being prone to chasing after false teachers. This leads him into his famous “boasting” discourse. He is touting his own qualifications as an Apostle so that they won’t go running after false apostles and deceivers, and will keep to the true path (2 Cor 12:20-21).

Jesus Himself rebukes six of the seven churches of Asia He addresses. Most scholars think that the Book of Revelation was written no later than AD 100. Yet look at all the serious problems already observed in these apostolic churches!

The parable of the wheat and tares (Mt 13:24-30, 36-43) reads as if the tares (weeds) are at least equal in number to the wheat. A moment’s reflection on the proliferation of uncontrolled weeds (13:30) in any lawn will bring this point home, I think. This is also apparent in the similar pronouncements about wheat and chaff (Mt 3:12; Lk 3:17): a parable of the saved and the damned. Since every wheat plant has chaff, too (the worthless part of it), then it would seem that we are talking about a 50/50 proposition.

The Apostle Paul has very stern words for the Galatian church as well. None of these congregations “had it all together” spiritually (not even close), as many today seem to arrogantly believe about their own particular fellowships. Again, nothing has changed. The Puritan notion of a “pure” church or denomination is a myth if ever there was one. And it is unbiblical, if the examples of apostolic churches prove anything.

1) “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel.” (Gal 1:6)

2) “O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? . . . Are you so foolish? Having begun with the Spirit, are you now ending with the flesh?” (Gal 3:1, 3)

3) “but 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? . . . I am afraid I have labored over you in vain.” (Gal 4:9, 11)

4) “Have I then become your enemy by telling you the truth? . . . I am perplexed about you.” (Gal 4:16, 20)

5) “For freedom Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. Now I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. . . . You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.” (Gal 5:1-2, 4)

6) “You were running well; who hindered you from obeying the truth?” (Gal 5:7)

Yet the same Bible refers to a holy and infallible Church:

Ephesians 5:25-27 . . . Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.

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

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

Matthew 16:18 . . . my church . . . [Jesus speaking]

Acts 20:28 . . . care for the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son.

Acts 15:28 . . . it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us . . . [i.e., “the apostles and the elders” (15:2) gathered in Jerusalem for a council or “assembly” (15:12)]

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

Conclusion: by Hays’ “reasoning” the Bible (especially St. Paul) has a “schizoid ecclesiology”: just as us lowly ignorant Catholics supposedly do.

***

***

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.

Visible Church; Apostolic Succession; Protestant “Dogmatism”; Ever-Changing Rome?; Vatican II “Conciliarism”?; Doctrinal Development; Mary’s Assumption in Catholic Thought Prior to 1950

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

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

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

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

*****

[Chapter 4: Catholic Apologetics]

Catholicism of the mind

They don’t convert to Catholicism based on evidence for Catholicism. Rather, they convert to Catholicism despite evidence to the contrary. [p. 166]

This is self-refuting. I just wanted my readers to see it.

As the world slept

This dovetails with the claim of Catholic apologists that Jesus founded a visible church (i.e. unified hierarchical organization). It has a visible head (the pope). But compare that to Christ’s kingdom parable about the seed growing at night. In that respect, God’s kingdom is invisible. It grows at night while the farmer sleeps. It grows at night while the world sleeps. . . . In that respect, the church represents a silent revolution. It grows and spreads under cover of darkness. [p. 167]

That doesn’t describe the following passage about a visible Church:

Matthew 5:14-16 You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hid. [15] Nor do men light a lamp and put it under a bushel, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. [16] Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven. (cf. Mk 4:21; Lk 11:33]

In the Synoptics, the church and the kingdom of God are closely related categories. [p. 167]

Here Hays confirms an earlier argument of mine, from Reply #12. He had written,

Where do we find “the church” in the Gospel of Mark? Mark’s Gospel never mentions “the church”. Where do we find “the church” in the Gospel of Luke? Luke’s Gospel never mentions “the church”. Where do we find “the church” in the Gospel of John? John’s Gospel never mentions “the church”. The only Gospel that even mentions “the church” is Matthew’s Gospel. And it mentions “the church” just two times. That’s it! [p. 99]

My answer was that “kingdom of God / heaven” was massively found in the Gospels (84 times, in fact) and that it was basically a synonym for “church.” Thus, Hays contradicts himself. On page 99 of his book he can barely find “the church” in the Gospels. Now on page 167, he can. We all live and learn, I reckon. At least he was half-right in his book.

Prooftexting apostolic succession

[Choosing Matthias to replace Judas was] maintaining the symbolism of the Twelve after Judas defected. . . . there can’t be more or less than Twelve at a time. . . . The Twelve is a closed number. Judas was replaced to maintain the symbolism. By definition, you can’t extrapolate from a closed number (the Twelve) to an indefinite number beyond twelve at a time. The Twelve constitute a self-contained unit. There can only be
changes within that unit. [p. 168]

The twelve disciples are also called “apostles” (Mt 10:2; Rev 21:14). There are more apostles than twelve (e.g., St. Paul). So much for this argument. But there’s more:

Luke 10:1 the Lord appointed seventy others, and sent them on ahead of him, two by two, into every town and place where he himself was about to come.

The classic Protestant commentators acknowledge these as further “disciples” and they seem to be called “disciples” in Luke 10:23 too. Benson Commentary states that “He . . . sent out seventy of his disciples” and “It is remarkable that our Lord assigns the same reason for the mission of the seventy which he had assigned for the mission of the twelve disciples.” Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers refers to “the seventy disciples.” So does Matthew Henry. and Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary. Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible states that “besides the twelve, whom he chose and called out, from among the multitude of the disciples, and ordained them apostles, he selected and ordained seventy others.” Meyer’s NT Commentary adds:

That Jesus in general had around Him a larger circle of constant disciples, besides the Twelve, from whom He could appoint seventy for a special commission, is in itself, and from the evidence of such passages as Acts 1:15; Acts 1:21, 1 Corinthians 15:6, as well as John 6:60, not to be doubted.

My argument, then, is that neither “disciples” nor “apostles” are confined in the Bible to twelve people alone (though there is definitely a strong sense of “the [original] twelve”). Acts 6:1 states that “the disciples were increasing in number.” Hays’ argument that the original twelve always had to be twelve falls flat as a result. We even see the seventy disciples doing the exact same sorts of evangelistic things that the original twelve did. Matthias is an example of true apostolic succession in the Bible. Since Protestants reject apostolic succession, Hays had to find some sort of way to discount that, and this desperate answer is what he came up with.

You then play a shell game by switching from that to apostles appointing elders, as if that flows out of the appointment of Mathias. But that’s categorically different. [p. 168]

It is a different category, but this is sanctioned in the passage itself, since Luke cites Psalms 108:8 in Acts 1:20: “His office let another take.” The Greek for “office” is episkopé (Strong’s word #1984): the word for “bishop” and the root of “episcopal.” Thayer’s Greek Concordance writes about its use in this passage:

c. after the analogy of the Hebrew פְּקֻדָּה (Numbers 4:16; 1 Chronicles 24:19 (here the Sept. ἐπίσκεψις), etc.), oversight i. e. overseership, office, charge; Vulg. episcopatus: Acts 1:20, from Psalm 108:8; specifically, the office of a bishop (the overseer or presiding officer of a Christian church): 1 Timothy 3:1, and in ecclesiastical writings

In KJV, it’s translated “bishoprick” at Acts 1:20 and “bishop” at 1 Timothy 3:1. This clinches the case for apostolic succession from the Bible itself, since Judas was in effect called a bishop or elder, and this is the office that Matthias would assume, and which would be perpetual throughout Church history. The cognate episkopos (Strong’s word #1985) is defined by Strong (with obvious Protestant bias — not wanting to say the word “bishop”), as “overseer, supervisor, ruler, especially used with reference to the supervising function exercised by an elder or presbyter of a church or congregation.”

That’s still quite sufficient, however, to make the argument for apostolic succession. The word appears five times in the NT. KJV translates it as “bishop(s)” four out of five times, and “overseer” in the remaining appearance. If we consult English translations for 1 Timothy 3:2, which has episkopos, we see that bishops is used 26 times in one particular listing, while “overseer” also appears 26 times, “leader” eight times, and “elder” twice.  No problem for the Catholic and larger “episcopal Church government” view. “Overseer” and “leader” are synonyms for “bishop” anyway.

Moreover, Acts 1:25 states that Matthias would “take the place in this ministry . . . from which Judas turned aside.” The word there is diakonia (Strong’s word #1248): from which deacon derives (Acts 1:17 applies the same word to Judas, too). It’s usually translated “ministry” in English translations, and the same word is applied to Christian work of non-apostles (e.g., Acts 6:4; 1 Cor 12:5: “varieties of service”; 1 Cor 16:15: “the household of Stephanas . . . have devoted themselves to the service of the saints”).

No transfer of office. To the contrary, the Twelve is, in the nature of the case, a self-enclosed numerical unit. You can’t legitimately expand from that to more than twelve at a time. [p. 168]

As I already proved, the Bible and Jesus — contrary to Pope Steve Hays III — did indeed do that (both “disciple” and “apostle” are applied to many more people than the original “twelve”). Hence, in John 6, when Jesus teaches Real Presence in the Eucharist, the “proto-Protestants” who had followed Him couldn’t handle that and left Him (“After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him” — John 6:66: an appropriate number for such apostasy!). This is immediately opposed to the twelve, since the next verse states, “Jesus said to the twelve, ‘Do you also wish to go away?’ ” Again, none of this refutes the biblical reasoning for apostolic succession. It’s just grasping at straws.

The fact that each of the Twelve might be classified as an apostle doesn’t imply that all apostles are disciples in the exclusive sense of the Twelve. [p. 169]

We agree, but it still doesn’t rebut our argument for apostolic succession, which I made above, and which Hays (as so often) seems blissfully unaware of.

But Catholics don’t think there’s a permanent apostolic office with successive incumbents. They don’t think apostolic succession means one apostle succeeding another apostle. Rather, they think bishops in union with the pope are the true successors to the Apostolate. . . . apostolic succession involves a shift from apostles to bishops. Different principle. Replacing one apostle with another apostle isn’t any kind of precedent for replacing an apostle with a bishop. [p. 170]

Precisely as I showed through biblical Greek words (transfer from apostles to bishops and deacons and elders . . . There was only one Apostle Paul, too, yet he appears to pass on his office in some sense to Timothy:

2 Timothy 1:6, 11, 13-14 Hence I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands; . . . [11] For this gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher, . . . [13] Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; [14] guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.

2 Timothy 2:2 and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

2 Timothy 4:1-2 I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: [2] preach the word, be urgent in season and out of season, convince, rebuke, and exhort, be unfailing in patience and in teaching.

Hays was obviously unfamiliar with the entire classical argument from Matthias for apostolic succession. He never delved into the relevant Greek words. I did. My argument was thoroughly, deeply biblical; his was only biblical in a superficial, “surfacey” sense and a mere knee-jerk false tradition of men. We see this again and again in anti-Catholic polemics. They pick-and-choose. We go deep and incorporate all relevant cross-references. I have many more articles on this topic (with additional arguments):

A difference, to be a difference, must make a difference

Catholicism takes the position that in addition to Biblical revelation, I’m duty-bound to believe Catholic dogmas. It is sinful to disbelieve them. [p. 171]

Is this unique to Catholicism? Nope. We also see it in the infamous Calvinist Synod of Dort in the Netherlands in 1618–1619, which required all Calvinists to believe in the five tents known by the acronym TULIP. The thirteen Arminian ministers (the “Remonstrants”) refused, and were ordered to stop preaching, which they also refused to do. On July 5, 1619 they were sentenced as “disturbers of the public peace” and ordered to leave the country. Wikipedia describes what then occurred:

There followed the political condemnation of the statesman Johan van Oldenbarnevelt who had been the protector of the Remonstrants. For the crime of general perturbation in the state of the nation, both in Church and State (treason), he was beheaded on 13 May 1619, only four days after the final meeting of the Synod. As consequence of the Arminian defeat, the jurist Hugo Grotius was given a life sentence in prison; but he escaped with the help of his wife. Both Van Oldenbarnevelt and Grotius had in fact been imprisoned since 29 August 1618.

These Dutch Calvinists played the game that they learned from the Lutherans, Calvin, and the Anglicans: simply redefine religious differences as treason and kill anyone who proclaims them. Only Catholics believe(d) in dogmas, and only they persecuted outsiders? Think again. Protestantism has a massive history of persecution and intolerance. Lutherans and Calvinists alike murdered the Anabaptists, folks who — like Steve Hays — believed in adult “believer’s” baptism. In that utterly intolerant Protestant world with the beloved State-Churches, Hays and his comrade, fellow Reformed Baptist James White could very well have been executed (usually by drowning, in mockery of adult baptism). I, on the other hand, as a Catholic, would merely be exiled.

Indeed, it may be a mortal sin. [p. 171]

Well, I guess old poor Johan van Oldenbarnevelt must have committed a mortal sin, then, since he lost his head over the crime of not believing in doctrinaire Calvinism. Many hundreds of Catholics were murdered in England under Butcher Henry VIII (430 martyrs) and Evil Queen Bess (312 victims) — often by being hanged, drawn, and quartered: disemboweled, hearts cut out, etc. –, for the “treasonous” view of not accepting the saintly inveterate adulterer and murderer Henry VIII — instead of wicked, evil popes — as the Supreme Head of the Christian Church.

The church of Rome is like Neurath’s ship, which undergoes constant remodeling after it leaves dry dock. You can no longer say what Catholicism is or means because that’s subject to some unforeseeable future revision or reinterpretation. What is ever truly definitive? What is ever truly authoritative? [p. 174]

As I’ve reiterated again and again, Catholics know exactly what we believe. We’re far more precise and definite than any Protestant denomination. Hays never takes one Catholic doctrine and proves beyond doubt (from our sources) that it has fundamentally changed. It’s all empty rhetoric and baseless hyper-polemics. On the one hand we are blasted and derided because we believe in dogmas that must be adhered to. Then Hays, without missing a beat, will turn around and claim that no one knows what Catholics believe (“What is ever truly definitive?”), or will have to believe in the future. Which is it? He couldn’t comprehend development of doctrine to save his life. And because of that gross deficiency in his understanding, he was doomed to never grasp the nature of historical theology and its consistent progression over time.

Hays does vainly attempt, however (pp. 174-175), to assert that “no salvation outside the Church” has changed and that the Church supposedly taught in the past that every non-Catholic was inevitably, irrevocably damned to hell. I’ve already addressed that, and so need not do it again.

What’s the official ecclesiology in Vatican II? Is it the more collegial, conciliarist model that the majority of bishops voted for, or is it the more ultamontane model in the “explanatory note” of Paul VI? [p. 175]

It’s the same as it has always been: the pope as supreme head; bishops in council must ultimately agree with the pope. Unlike Hays’ usual modus operandi, I will actually cite the council. The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium) taught that “This teaching concerning the institution, the permanence, the nature and import of the sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and his infallible teaching office, the sacred synod proposes anew to be firmly believed by all the faithful” (18). Next question? It also strengthened the concept of conciliar infallibility more than ever, but not with any implication that they could oppose the pope (the error of conciliarism).

Paul VI was clearly alarmed by what the bishops promulgated, so he overruled it with his explanatory note. Yet these two competing models of ecclesiology bump up against each other in the final edition. Both were codified at the same council. . . . wouldn’t we expect a divine teaching office to be able to head off that train wreck in advance, rather than letting the two trains collide, . . .? [p. 175]

They do not. If Hays was so sure they did, why in the world wouldn’t he nail it down once and for all with documentation? Instead, we get his usual bald assertion without demonstration. His research abilities are about equal to a nine-year-old writing a book report. He just didn’t get it. Poor fellow . . .

To begin with, the particular doctrine (Assumption of Mary) is a theological innovation. It was unknown before the 5C. [p. 176]

As shown, it was present (implied) in Revelation 12 and follows deductively from the logical end of Mary’s Immaculate Conception or sinlessness. The latter is explicitly stated in Luke 1:28, closely scrutinized. After the biblical period, it took a while to develop fully, as is the case with many doctrines (where Catholics and Protestants agree), including trinitarianism and the Two Natures of Christ.

In addition, the theory of development is a theological innovation. It represents a fundamental break with how the church of Rome used to define sacred tradition. [p. 176]

Sheer nonsense (I’m tempted to use a much stronger description!). It was very explicit in St. Vincent of Lerins in the 5th century and almost as much in St. Augustine. See my article, Development of Doctrine: Patristic & Historical Development (Featuring Much Documentation from St. Augustine, St. Vincent of Lerins, St. Thomas Aquinas, Vatican I, Popes Pius IX, Pius X, Etc.) [3-19-02]. This is exactly what Hays desperately needed to learn and understand, but alas, he never did.

Notice that the Assumption of Mary was promulgated despite unanimous opposition of Catholic theological faculties at the time. That’s not just because the doctrine itself lacks traditional pedigree, but because the justification is yet another theology innovation. [p. 176]

More poppycock. Catholic theologian Alan Schreck observed:

In the hundred years before Pope Pius’ declaration, the popes had received petitions from 113 cardinals, 250 bishops, 32,000 priests and religious brothers, 50,000 religious women, and 8 million lay people, all requesting that the Assumption be recognized officially as a Catholic teaching. Apparently, the pope discerned that the Holy Spirit was speaking through the people of God on this matter. (Catholic and Christian, Ann Arbor, Michigan: Servant Books, 1984, 180)

I don’t know how many Catholic scholars (or “Catholic” in name only) rejected the Assumption in 1950. I haven’t found anything. But then again, as usual, Steve hasn’t give us any documentation so why bother? It’s his burden to establish his claim.

***

***

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.

Theological Presuppositions; What Was Apostolic Teaching?; “Church” Defined; Christian Unity; Faith Isn’t Philosophy

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

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

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

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

*****

[Chapter 4: Catholic Apologetics]

Ecclesial consumerism

There was a time in European history when Roman Catholicism was the only game in town. Moreover, to publicly question Catholic tenets was an invitation to be tortured to death by the religious and/or civil authorities, so there was a powerful incentive to keep your head down even if you entertained private doubts. [p. 135]

Hays would love his readers to think that such things didn’t happen under Protestantism. Think again! No one was more intolerant and bloodthirsty than Protestant England in the 16th and 17th centuries. Catholics didn’t receive full civil freedom until the 1830s, and even then anti-Catholicism attitudes were endemic.

In addition, for devout Catholics, it’s not just a set of beliefs but an all-encompassing way of life. [p. 135]

And it’s not for serious, devout Protestants? It should be! It’s in evangelical Protestantism that I heard and accepted the maxim, “Jesus is Lord over all of life.”

Everyone within your inner social circle was Catholic. A complete, off-the-shelf package. That’s how it used to be–less so now. That conditioning produces tunnel vision–so that any alternative is inconceivable. For those deeply immersed in Catholic culture, a break with Catholicism requires a radical paradigm shift. [p. 135]

Everyone within your inner social circle is anti-Catholic Protestant. A complete, off-the-shelf package. That conditioning produces tunnel vision–so that any alternative is inconceivable. For those deeply immersed in anti-Catholic Protestant culture, a break with anti-Catholicism and/or the much larger Protestantism requires a radical paradigm shift.

A person’s religious affiliation shouldn’t simply be a cultural given. To be randomly born into a particular religious package is not a good reason
to be an adherent. That’s the luck of the draw–which doesn’t reliably select for truth. [p. 136]

I agree 100%.

In my experience, Bryan [Cross] always commences his discussion of Catholicism with key assumptions taken for granted, as if that’s already been established. Bryan’s view of Catholicism is like an axiomatic system in which the first principles are arbitrary postulates. [p. 138]

In my experience, Steve Hays always commences his discussion of Protestantism with key assumptions taken for granted, as if that’s already been established. Hays’s view of Protestantism is like an axiomatic system in which the first principles are arbitrary postulates.

[Catholicism is] a schismatic and heretical body which broke with the NT exemplars. [p. 138]

I would like to see a systematic exposition of these “exemplars.” This reminds me of a ludicrous exchange from June 1996 that I had with Bishop “Dr.” [???] James White, the premier anti-Catholic Protestant (Reformed Baptist) apologist of our time. His words will be in green below (the original exchange — see the link — is here compacted and abridged for more brevity and clarity):

I believe it is vitally important to believe in what the Apostles taught. Which, of course, is exactly why I cannot embrace the teachings of Rome. In fact, it is fidelity to the apostolic message that is the strongest argument against the innovations of Rome over time, Dave.

Why not boldly tell us, then, James, precisely what“the Apostles taught”? [and I wanted to know what they taught, specifically, on 18 issues that I laid out]

That’s pretty easy, Dave. I have 27 books filled with their teaching. Where shall we start? I guess we could start with the apostolic teaching that we are justified by faith and so have peace with God (Romans 5:1).

Why, though, if sola fide is true, did “scarcely anyone” teach it from Paul to Luther, according to Norman Geisler, in his latest book Roman Catholics and Evangelicals (p. 502)? Very strange, and too bizarre and implausible for me.

The Apostles also taught that Jesus Christ was and is fully deity (Colossians 2:9), and that’s really important, too!

Absolutely. But you guys got this doctrine from us, so big wow!

Are you saying that the Bible is insufficientto answer these questions? That God’s Word is so unclear, so confused, so ambiguous, that these issues cannot be determined by a careful and honest examination of the Bible?

It’s irrelevant what I think, because I’m asking you. But let’s assume for the sake of argument that it isclear, sufficient, and perspicuous. Okay, now, please tell me what it teaches on these issues! Does anyone not understand my argumentation here? Is it that complicated? This is the essence of my whole argument in this vein. If we grant your perspicuity, then tell us these doctrines that are so clear.  I’m saying: be true to your own principles, and don’t be ashamed of them. Either demonstrate this abstract, ethereal notion of perspicuity concretely and practically, or cease using it if it has no content, and if it is only useful as a content-less slogan to bash Catholics with.

People who call themselves Protestants disagree on every point above; people who call themselves Roman Catholics disagree on every point above, too. So what?

Again, I’m just holding you to your own words (“fidelity to the apostolic message”). If you would rather admit that your own phrases have neither definition nor doctrinal or rational content, that would be one way (albeit not a very impressive one) out of your felt dilemma. I’m simply asking you to define what you mean by “apostolic message.”

I hope all on the list realize what is being said here. A person with the entire NT in his hand cannot know what the apostolic message was unless he likewise has Roman “tradition” alongside! Imagine it!

All the more reason for you to tell us what this mysterious “apostolic message” is. According to this curious illogic, one can “know” what the message is, without the Catholic Church, but they can’t tell mewhat it is, what it consists of!

Christ is the way, truth, and life, and hence fidelity to Him would cause one to put truth and consistency in the forefront of the examination.

What does this have to do with anything? Consistency is primarily what I’m calling for, and I’m asking you what the truth is, but you don’t want to tell me!

I get the real feeling, Dave, that you well know that your questions have been and will be answered,

If they have, I’ve missed it. Please, somebody send me that post. If they “will” be answered, when, and by whom, I wonder? . . . Why don’t you select just five of this present list of items out of my entire list of 18 in which Protestants differ, and tell me what the Apostles taught, so I can know what you know?

Your argument won’t get you anywhere, Dave (and your style is certainly not going to win you any points with the more serious of our readers, either).

Is that why no one is answering? My style? Maybe I’ll try a boring, staid approach, then.

You well know what the Bible teaches on these topics.

James, James! This is the whole point! We know, but you guys can’t figure it out. Hence your reluctance to answer (I can think of no better reason). A short answer to my question surely wouldn’t put you out.

White went off on even more distant tangents after that. The fact remains that he would not tell me what the “apostolic message” was in areas where Catholics and Protestants disagree; let alone on the eighteen points I asked him about. He claimed that it existed, but would not get specific. It was pathetic and absurd in equal measure.

Hays’ sophistical attempts to talk about “NT exemplars” reminded me of this. He won’t (and did not) get specific, either, because he knows (and I submit that Bishop White also knew) that close analysis of early Church history is embarrassing for the Protestant view every time. So the usual strategy is “out of sight, out of mind.”

Presuppositional Catholicism

In my experience, Bryan Cross never begins with evidence; rather, he always begins with his preconception of what “the Church” must be like. By definition, “the Church” must be such-and-such. He has an unfalsifiable paradigm. Kinda like Barth’s concept of suprahistory, where Christian essentials safely exist in a Never-never land sealed off from the risk of empirical or historical disconfirmation. Even if he occasionally appeals to the church fathers, I suspect that’s filtered through his Catholic paradigm. The Roman Magisterium has the “final interpretive authority” regarding the consensus patrum. So there is no independent evidence for Catholicism, only value-laden evidence that takes the Catholic paradigm for granted. It’s a kind of Catholic presuppositionalism. An axiomatic system in which the “the Church” is axiomatic, but the axioms are indemonstrable. [p. 139]

In my experience (especially after going through this atrociously argued book), Steve Hays never begins with evidence; rather, he always begins with his preconception of what the invisible “Church” must be like. By definition, the invisible “Church” must be such-and-such. He has an unfalsifiable paradigm. Kinda like Barth’s concept of suprahistory, where Christian essentials safely exist in a Never-never land sealed off from the risk of empirical or historical disconfirmation. Even if he occasionally appeals to the church fathers, I suspect that’s filtered through his low church, non-denom Calvinist paradigm. Steve Hays has the “final interpretive authority” regarding the consensus patrum. So there is no independent evidence for his low church, non-denom Calvinism, only value-laden evidence that takes the low church, non-denom Calvinism paradigm for granted. It’s a kind of Calvinist presuppositionalism. An axiomatic system in which the “the Church” is axiomatic, but the axioms are indemonstrable.

And Hay’s never-ending incomplete sentences are about to drive me batty! And I have 556 pages to go! I will need serious prayer for my patience and great difficulty in suffering folly and lousy arguments, to endure it.

The address of the “visible” Church is Shangri-La. Although you can’t find it on the map, it’s oh-so visible–unlike those hapless Protestant denominations. [p. 139]

The address (if there is said to be just one) is in the Vatican City in the center of Rome. Anyone can find that.

Elevator out of order

Notice how Bryan [Cross] opposes “the Church” to individual Christians. He’s covertly uses “the Church” as a synonym, not for the faithful, but for a tiny subset of the church: popes and bishops in union with the pope. [p. 155]

Yes, because he’s being biblical. So, for example, in Matthew 18:17 Jesus recommends regarding a non-repentant sinner: “If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church.” If the Church is simply the faithful, then the passage would read, “If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the faithful.” How does that work? Obviously, some of the “faithful” must be selected in order to function as an authoritative Church, whether locally (as in this instance) or the entire Church.

Likewise, in the Jerusalem council, the early Church had to make a decision about circumcision and how the Mosaic Law related to Gentiles, and “apostles” and “elders” (Acts 15:2, 22-23) gathered in Jerusalem. They came to a decision that “seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” (15:28). This binding decision was then announced to Christians in widely different locations. Paul was traveling through Asia Minor (Turkey) and he “delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem” (16:4). So how does this scenario work out with Steve’s equation of the Church and the faithful?

Again, only some of the faithful: the “elite” if you will, carefully selected, including Paul, Peter, and James the bishop of Jerusalem, made the decision, guided by the Holy Spirit, to be observed by all Christians. That’s not some kind of democratic “every man for himself” low Church, non-denom Protestant authority. Rather, it’s full-blown, infallible Church authority, contrary to sola Scriptura. (since something other than Scripture was infallible: the Church). It’s also both hierarchical and papal authority. Peter was present at the council and provided the key rationale for the final decision. Apostles and elders functioned as later, bishops would, gathering in council under the authority of a pope: sort of like the US Congress and the President, except that the pope, unlike the President whose veto can be overridden, must always be agreed with by the council.

In these cases and others that could be brought forth, the “Church” is indeed different from individual Christians, and they can be distinguished from each other.

Since Christians aren’t united in one faith in a visible catholic Church (as Bryan defines it), that was never Christ’s intention. If that was his
intention, then he’s fallible and mistaken. I don’t think God has failed intentions. [p. 155]

Nonsense. The Bible and God give us the ideal of what we are supposed to be like, and we fail and fall short every time. Is that God’s fault? No. Was the fall of man and original sin his fault? No. Is God the author of sin? No. Would the Church be perfectly one and holy just because Jesus wanted that? No. God gave human beings free will, and that always incudes the possibility of failure and sin, and much evil. Therefore, our falling short is distinct from the question of God’s perfect will and intention.

He wanted us to be perfectly one (John 17) and Christians clearly are not. But the Catholic Church has the largest amount of doctrinal unity, and has continually for almost 2,000 years. Protestantism has great amounts of self-contradiction and disunity, by nature of its tragically faulty rule of faith. So that introduces a false concept alongside the usual sins and foibles of human beings.

Maybe Bryan thinks that Christ’s intentions are realized in the church of Rome. If so, that would mean Jesus only intended for “Roman Catholics to be united in one faith in a visible catholic church,” rather than Christians in general. [p. 155]

No; God intended for all Christians to be spiritually and doctrinally united and all in the same Church: the Catholic Church.

Now there is a sense in which a Catholic convert no longer relies on his own judgment. But that’s because he’s given up, and not because the process of inquiry yields a flash of insight that transcends the epistemic starting-point. [p. 158]

No, because it’s a thing called “faith”: which Hays completely neglects in his entire analysis of Bryan Cross’s argument. I’ve long noted this in anti-Catholic apologetics and contra-convert analyses, in which they almost seem to reduce the Christian faith to mere philosophy. Everything is premises and logical conclusions and epistemology and absolute certainty. But faith is a huge part of it, too! Faith doesn’t operate on the same plane as reason (though we must always seek to make it consistent with reason). It’s not certain in the way that 2+2=4 or “if a=b and b=c, a=c” are. Hays at length finally did mention faith, but in the case of Catholic converts, he characterized it as “blind faith” (p. 158), ruling out the possibility of “divine illumination” (p. 158), so he is immediately hostile to it. He simply assumes without argument that a Catholic converts’ faith must be blind and unsupported by evidence, the Bible, internal verification by the Holy Spirit, etc.

Then Hays gets a little closer to the mark:

A Catholic inquirer may come to believe that his sect is divinely protected from error, but his belief isn’t divinely protected from error. [p. 160]

No one said that it was. But it can be correct without being infallible. And if — in the final analysis — this belief is indeed correct, then that person has arrived at a true state of affairs: an infallible and indefectible Church, and is in a great place. I would say that both are taught in the Bible, and I wrote a 150-page book about it: Biblical Proofs for an Infallible Church and Papacy (March 2012).

He can’t appeal to an infallible teaching office to retroactively validate his fallible belief in an infallible teaching office. [p. 160]

That’s quite correct. But what he can do is note that the Bible (itself inspired, infallible, inerrant revelation from God) teaches that the one true Church is infallible. That ain’t simply “him” believing or saying it; it’s God. Protestants don’t even make the claim! It’s precluded by their false “pillar” of sola Scriptura.

Instead, he comes to a point where he “surrenders” his judgment to the judgment of the magisterium. [p. 160]

Nope. He surrenders it to the Holy Scripture that teaches an infallible and authoritative, institutional, hierarchical, visible, and historically continuous Church. And if he studies Church history, he finds these notions predominating, too, until the Protestants came along and tried to deny it.

But he doesn’t do that because reason proved the magisterium to be divinely protected from error, thereby rendering independent judgment
unnecessary beyond that point. He wasn’t infallibly guided to infallibly discover an infallible guide. [p. 160]

Ah, but yes he was, because Holy Scripture (whether this person knows it or not) teaches it.

[H]is assent to the magisterium can never rise any higher than “human opinion”. Even if an infallible teaching office did exist, that lies beyond the reach of reason to demonstrate. [p. 162]

Nonsense. Scripture and Church history both validate it.

So the vicious circularity of the Catholic appeal remains inextricable. [p. 162]

Hays wrongly thinks so because he has completely ignored what the Bible has to teach us about this matter.

***

***

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.

Eucharist & Sacrifice; Baptism; Salvation of Non-Christians(?); Confession; Theological Liberals (& Pope Francis); Ordination; Church Indefectibility 

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

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

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

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

*****

[Chapter 4: Catholic Apologetics]

The counsel of Trent, part 2.

The NT sometimes uses sacrificial language for the eucharist because the eucharist is the new covenantal counterpart to the Passover. That doesn’t imply that the eucharist is sacrificial. Rather, that draws attention to the fact that Passover prefigures the eucharist. The eucharist replaces the Passover. [p. 120]

Let me try to follow this: if the NT language for the Eucharist uses sacrificial language, it proves that it’s not sacrificial, because it is the NT counterpart for the sacrificial Passover? Huh? If it didn’t have sacrificial language, then Hays would no doubt argue, “see! It’s not sacrificial!” But if it does use such language, Hays argues, “see! It’s not sacrificial!” Makes perfect sense, right? See my book chapter, The Sacrifice of the Mass: A Lamb . . . Slain [3-8-92; rev. May 1996]. St. Paul is quite clear:

1 Corinthians 10:16-21 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? [17] Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. [18] Consider the people of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar? [19] What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? [20] No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be partners with demons. [21] You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.

1 Corinthians 11:23-30 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, [24] and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” [25] In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” [26] For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. [27] Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. [28] Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. [29] For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. [30] That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.

Protestants (as with John 6) try to undermine and ignore the obvious realism of these passages, but they fail. It’s too obvious.

Moreover, Scripture makes metaphorical usage of sacrificial imagery. For instance, Paul uses sacrificial language in Rom 12:1, but that’s figurative rather than literal. He’s not advocating that Christians commit self-immolation. [p. 120]

But that’s a different use of the word “sacrifice” altogether, and so is irrelevant to this discussion. It’s similar to Hebrews 13:16: “Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God.” W. E. Vine’s Expository Dictionary of NT Words defines the latter instance as “doing good to others and communicating with their needs.”

Jn 6 foreshadows the crucifixion (Jn 19) rather than the eucharist. Jesus is forecasting his death on the cross. [p. 120]

How does eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking His blood relate to the crucifixion? Hays is really straining at gnats here. Jesus in John 6 compares Himself to the manna in the wilderness:

John 6:48-51 I am the bread of life. [49] Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. [50] This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. [51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

Jn 6 can’t refer to communion because Jesus says eating-drinking/believing-coming terminates hunger and thirst (v35). But communion doesn’t put an end to physical appetite. [p. 120]

John 6:35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.

Jesus is obviously talking about spiritual things: whoever comes to Him (believes in Him, partakes in the Eucharist) won’t have spiritual thirst and hunger any longer. Hays, in his woodenly literal, fundamentalist-type “exegesis” completely misses this. Compare:

Matthew 5:6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.

John 4:14 but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst; the water that I shall give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”

John 7:37 . . . Jesus stood up and proclaimed, “If any one thirst, let him come to me and drink.”

So it must have reference to figurative consumption, which is permanently quenched and satiated. It other words: a metaphor for eternal life. [p. 120]

This is closer to the truth. Yes, those who come to and believe in Jesus will have eternal life. But they also obtain it through the Holy Eucharist; not merely belief in one’s head:

John 6:51 . . . if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.

John 6:53-54 . . . unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; [54] he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life . . .

John 6:56-58 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. [57] As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. [58] This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.”

For that matter, Catholics don’t think one-time communion is spiritually sufficient. Rather, Catholics are supposed to attend Mass at least once a week. It doesn’t put an end to spiritual hunger and thirst. [p. 121]

Jesus didn’t say it was a one-time thing. He was saying that this was a means to eternal life: partaking of His flesh, made present again at the Sacrifice of the Mass. Hays again employs a silly wooden literalism.  Jesus and Paul talked of partaking in the Eucharist “often” (1 Cor 11:25-26, above). And it’s done in “remembrance” of Jesus, which also strongly implies a regular observance (1 Cor 11:24-25, see above).

[M]odern Catholicism doesn’t regard baptism as essential to salvation. [p. 121]

Nonsense. Nothing has changed, as usual. Only in Hays’ head has the Catholic Church supposedly evolved into totally different belief-systems. It’s a fantasy of his own making. The Church has always held to baptismal regeneration and its being essential to salvation because it’s clearly and repeatedly taught in the Bible. See also the Catholic Catechism on baptism. At the same time the Church has always also recognized rare exceptions to the rule, and baptism of desire, etc.

Indeed, in modern Catholicism, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and atheists can be saved. [p. 121]

Indeed, in the Bible, Paul alludes to the possibility of salvation for non-Christians:

Romans 2:13-16 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. [14] When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. [15] They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them [16] on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

There are many other “ecumenical” motifs in the Bible, such as Jesus and the Roman centurion:

Matthew 8:5-12 As he entered Caper’na-um, a centurion came forward to him, beseeching him [6] and saying, “Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, in terrible distress.” [7] And he said to him, “I will come and heal him.” [8] But the centurion answered him, “Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; but only say the word, and my servant will be healed. [9] For I am a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to one, `Go,’ and he goes, and to another, `Come,’ and he comes, and to my slave, `Do this,’ and he does it.” [10] When Jesus heard him, he marveled, and said to those who followed him, “Truly, I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such faith. [11] I tell you, many will come from east and west and sit at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, [12] while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth.”

We also have the story of Cornelius, the Roman centurion in Acts 10. He is described as “a devout man who feared God with all his household, gave alms liberally to the people, and prayed constantly to God” (10:2), and it’s recorded that an “angel of God” spoke to him (10:3, 7, 30-32), saying, “Your prayers and your alms have ascended as a memorial before God” (10:4). The Holy Spirit Himself told Peter that He had sent Cornelius’ three friends to him (10:17-20), and indeed the Holy Spirit “fell on” Cornelius and his friends (10:44-46). All of this was before he was baptized (10:47-48). Peter testifies: “Truly I perceive that God shows no partiality, but in every nation any one who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him” (10:34-35).

So none of this is “new” (supposedly only after Vatican II) at all. It’s right in the Bible. The Church fathers (especially Augustine) wrote about it, and so did St. Thomas Aquinas (13th c.). If Hays had actually taken time to study these matters, he would have known this. But here I am correcting him, and educating those who have only learned about Catholicism from Hays or other anti-Catholics. Hays knows the truth now.

There is general agreement that there is no firm evidence for infant baptism before the latter part of the second century. This fact does not mean that it did not occur, but it does mean that supporters of the practice have a considerable chronological gap to account for. Many replace the historical silence by appeal to theological or sociological considerations. [p. 121]

I don’t know who’s agreeing to that, seeing that infant baptism is taught in the Bible (a strong deduction, but still, I contend, taught).

[P]ublic confession . . . [is] hardly equivalent to confessing your sins to a priest in private. [p. 122]

As so often, Hays can’t see the forest for the trees. The essence of confession is declaring sins and repentance to a clergyman. Whether it is public or private is secondary and not of the essence. So public confession is a legitimate evidence for confession. For the true-blue Protestant (with some exceptions), any confession to men at all is senseless, unnecessary, and anathema; all must confess to God only. But the Bible teaches the former, so they have to grapple with it somehow.

You just pick a parish with a sympathetic priest or bishop. That’s easy to find. Lots of liberal priests and bishops to choose from. [p. 123]

See how Hays always has to highlight the liberal dissidents (that every group is blessed with)? Why is it he never seems to say, “lots of orthodox, faithful priests and bishops to choose from”? If I were recommending a Protestant denomination to someone intent to remain Protestant, I would tell him to avoid liberal denominations like the plague, and I’d direct him to one that is honest and actually follows its own stated beliefs; that is, one that is serious about the Christian faith and not just playing games. But for Hays, when he thought of “Catholic” all he could see in his head — for whatever inexplicable reason — was “liberals / heterodox / dissidents.” It’s like shopping for tomatoes at the grocery store and always picking out the squishy, blemished, half-rotten ones, and saying “those represent what tomatoes are supposed to be! They’re the real tomatoes.”

He [Trent Horn] tries to prooftext holy orders from 1 Tim 4:14. But that inference is complicated by alternative explanations: [p. 123]

The passage talks about the “gift” that Timothy had, which “was given” to him “by prophetic utterance when the council of elders laid their hands upon” him. Sounds like it could be ordination to me. But if Hays wants to discount it, then we have “And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ” (Eph 4:11-12). Those offices are called “gifts” as well, and “ministry” and working for the Church is present in context. Did Hays wish to argue that no one is ordained; that there are no pastors, elders, etc.?

One sinking ship–or many lifeboats?

Protestants were hellbound. And that’s the position Rome used to take regarding everybody who wasn’t in communion with Rome. [p. 127]

That’s a lie, as already explained.

But nowadays, the Magisterium is flirting with hopeful universalism. [p. 127]

That’s a lie, too. There is no universalism taught in Catholicism. Universal atonement, however, is taught (the possibility of any individual to obtain salvation, given certain conditions).

Another problem with his [some Catholic real or alleged apologist’s] tweets is bigotry. To judge by what he said, it seems highly unlikely that he’s had many, if any, conversations, with evangelical philosophers, theologians, Bible scholars, and church historians. His uninformed comments are a textbook case of prejudice. In addition, he’s like a man standing in front of a burning house, which happens to be his own house, while he lectures the neighbors on how their house is an eyesore. We watch him stand there, scolding us, while right behind him we see his own house in flames. [p. 127]

Another problem with Steve Hays’ critiques of Catholicism is bigotry. To judge by what he said, it seems highly unlikely that he’s had many, if any, conversations, with Catholic philosophers, theologians, Bible scholars, apologists, or church historians. His uninformed comments are a textbook case of prejudice. In addition, he’s like a man standing in front of a collection of burning houses, which happens to be his own neighborhood, while he lectures the neighbors on how their house is an eyesore. We watch him stand there, scolding us, while right behind him we see his own row of houses in flames.

Pope Francis is an aggressive modernist . . . [Catholicism] is on fire, and the sitting pope is the arsonist. . . . Francis is unweaving the Catholicism of Benedict XVI and John-Paul II. [pp. 127-128]

He’s not a “modernist” at all, which is, I guess, the reason that Hays doesn’t document this beyond all doubt. It’s what he wishes to be the case, and so he believes it in the face of the facts. First Hays asserts that post-Vatican II Catholicism is already modernist, universalistic, etc. Now he does an about-face and makes out that Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI were orthodox and traditional, while Francis is a flaming liberal revolutionary. Whatever works! Facts be damned! Consistency: what’s that?

Hays cited a Catholic claiming that Protestants did not have a valid Eucharist, but that the Orthodox did, and asked, “Is that the position of post-Vatican II theology?” [p. 129] Yes it is. That’s why Protestants are not allowed to receive Holy Communion at a Catholic Mass, because they have a different view and don’t agree with the Catholic view.

By the way, why does the Eucharist require a Catholic priest to be valid, but baptism does not? What’s the principle? Or is the distinction ad hoc? [p. 129]

Because the priest represents Jesus at the Last Supper (in persona Christi / alter Christus), and then presides over transubstantiation and the eucharistic sacrifice, whereby the one redeeming, sacrifice on the cross is supernatural made present. Baptism, on the other hand, was done by people other than Jesus from the beginning (“Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples”: Jn 4:2).

“Ecclesial deism”

[N]on-Catholics don’t believe God protects his denomination [Catholicism] from heresy or apostasy. [p. 131]

Non-Catholics don’t believe God protects any denomination or Christian communion from heresy or apostasy. This is a big problem, because the Bible teaches that the one true Church is indefectible.

We don’t believe Christ founded the Roman Catholic church in the first place. [p. 131]

What “church” did He found, then, since we know that He did so, by the words, “I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it” (Mt 16:18). All in one fell swoop, then, we know that there is such a thing as a “church” and it is Jesus’ own, and that it is indefectible. And we know that its first leader was Peter (the early part of the same verse).If the Catholic Church isn’t the one that Jesus is, which claimant is that? Hays could hardly deny that Jesus established a Church, when the text is so clear. The problem then becomes figuring out how the powers of death can’t touch the true Church, when Hays and Protestants deny that any Protestant denomination is infallible or indefectible (which is part and parcel of the definition of sola Scriptura). Quite the conundrum!

Protestants like me don’t believe that God withdrew his protection of his people from apostasy. To the contrary, God preserves the elect from apostasy. [p. 132]

That’s a meaningless abstract notion, since we don’t know for sure who the elect are, and those who think they are in the elect can’t agree on all doctrines anyway. So any sense of observable non-apostasy is nonsensical apart from a claimed denomination that “has it all right.” And that’s exactly what most Protestants will refuse to identify, because their own presuppositions disallow it.

***

***

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.

Canonicity; God’s Guidance; Ancient Contraception; Relics; Intercession of Saints

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

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

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

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

*****

[Chapter 3: Competing Paradigms]

Why I’m still Protestant

Let’s begin with an admission. As a Protestant, it would be nice to have more theological clarity and certainty on some issues. [p. 106]

Yes it would. And if that is the case, then maybe, just maybe, and perhaps God intended for Christians to have more certainty on those topics? And to not have to wonder about so many things because of competing, contradictory denominational claims? For my part, I think the Bible plainly teaches that God intended a profound doctrinal and institutional unity. I lay out the case in my articles critiquing denominationalism (linked in #13).

[D]oes anyone seriously think that Tobit or Bel and the Dragon is the equal of Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, or Song of Songs? [p. 107]

More or less the entire early Church (minus a few dissenters like Jerome) thought they were part of the Deuterocanon.

The problem with asking “who decides” [the canon] is that it only pushes the same question back a step: Who decides “who decides”? You decide who decides! A convert to Catholicism decided to make the Magisterium the decider. So the convert is the ultimate decider. [p. 107]

This is the old “infallible regress” argument that I have already dealt with (I won’t keep repeating myself in these critiques). But here’s a few more articles I didn’t link to before:

The Protestant “Non-Quest” for Certainty [3-15-06; abridged and links added on 7-12-20]

Glorying in Uncertainty in Modern Protestantism (Dialogue with a Calvinist) [11-11-09]

Radically Unbiblical Protestant “Quest for Uncertainty” [2-12-14]

It’s a myth in the first place. Jesus decided to make Peter the head (“rock”) of His one “church.” That means central authority, and hierarchical authority (because the other disciples represented the authority of bishops, lesser than the popes, but working together with them). And the system perpetuates itself by apostolic succession (first seen in the disciples choosing Matthias to replace Judas). The individual Catholic isn’t arbitrarily deciding on anything. He or she simply bows to what was demonstrably true from the beginning of the Church, instituted by our Lord Jesus, and described in inspired Scripture in Matthew 16. The Jerusalem Council also demonstrates how this authority was intended to work. It was the early councils and popes — not atomistic individuals taking polls — that decided the extent of the biblical canon.

A charismatic expects that God will give us certainty, clarity, and evidence whenever we need it or ask for it. God will answer all our prayers. He will perform miracles upon request. He will give us a sign. So the charismatic goes the Catholic one better. [p. 108]

That is an uninformed charismatic; on the fringes. I attended charismatic churches as a Protestant and now as a Catholic I am a member of a charismatic parish. I critiqued charismatic excesses and errors as a Protestant early as 40 years ago, when I started doing serious apologetics. And I utilized research from other charismatics who were fighting distortions of the mainstream charismatic body of thought. Once again, it’s the notorious Hays “broad brush”: claiming to be an expert on things he knows little about.

[Chapter 4: Catholic Apologetics]

Why be Catholic?

1. I’m not going to rehash 1 Tim 3:15. I’ve discussed that here: [link] [p. 113]

Yeah, I’ve discussed it many times, too:

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

1 Timothy 3:15 = Church Infallibility (vs. Steve Hays) [5-14-20]

I Timothy 3:15 vs. Sola Scriptura & Jason Engwer [10-4-21]

1 Timothy 3:15 = Infallible Church (vs. Lucas Banzoli) [6-3-22]

Turretin, 1 Timothy 3:15, Infallibility, & Eisegesis [8-24-22]

Church = Foundation of the Truth (1 Tim 3:15) (vs. L. Banzoli) [2-9-23]

And I’ll guarantee that Hays didn’t address several parts of my argument.

Regarding the Johannine verses [14:26; 16:13]:

i) The promise is made to the Eleven, not to “the Church”.

A Catholic might counter that the promise extends to the successors of the Eleven. If the papacy/Roman episcopate is an extension of the Apostolate, then the promise extends to the papacy/Roman episcope.

ii) Problem is, there’s nothing in these verses, or John’s Gospel generally, or 1-3 John, to warrant that extension. [p. 113]

John 15:16 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide; so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you.

John 20:21 . . . As the Father has sent me, even so I send you. [the next two verses have Jesus granting them the Holy Spirit and the power to absolve sins]

To my knowledge, early Christian opposition to contraception was inseparable from opposition to abortion because, before modern medical science, it was impossible in principle or practice to separate the two. So that’s obsolete. [p. 114]

To the contrary, the ancients were well aware of the distinction between the two (though many — like Luther and Calvin centuries later — regarded both as “murder”):

There was no lack of birth control in the ancient world. I don’t think that there is any type of contraception known today that was not known in the ancient world: pharmacological, barrier (both chemical and mechanical), coitus interruptus, sodomy, sterilization, etc. For a brief introduction to the subject by the foremost historian of the subject, see John M. Riddle, et al., “Ever Since Eve . . .: Birth Control in the Ancient World”, Archaeology, March/April 1994, pp. 29-35. We really do underestimate the ingenuity of our ancestors. While in the past these were far from always effective or reliable, people kept trying. See John M. Riddle: Contraception and Abortion from the Ancient World to the Renaissance (1992), and Eve’s Herbs: A History of Contraception and Abortion in the West (1997).

For centuries, historians paid no attention to ancient accounts that claimed certain plants provided an effective means of birth control. . . . Modern laboratory analysis of various plants [including silphium, asafoetida, seeds of Queen Anne’s lace, pennyroyal, willow, date palm, pomegranate, inter al.], however, gives us reason to believe that the classical potions were effective, and that women in antiquity had more control over their reproductive lives than previously thought. (Riddle, op. cit., p. 30)

There is a consensus in the Catholic Church. The Orthodox churches not in communion with Rome are outside of this consensus:

The propositions constituting a condemnation of contraception are, it will be seen, recurrent. Since the first clear mention of contraception by a Christian theologian, when a harsh third-century moralist accused a pope of encouraging it, the articulated judgment has been the same. In the world of the late Empire known to St. Jerome and St. Augustine, in the Ostrogothic Arles of Bishop Caesarius and the Suevian Braga of Bishop Martin, in the Paris of St. Albert and St. Thomas, in the Renaissance Rome of Sixtus V and the Renaissance Milan of St. Charles Borromeo, in the Naples of St. Alphonsus Liguori and Liege of Charles Billuart, in the Philadelphia of Bishop Kenrick, and in the Bombay of Cardinal Gracias, the teachers of the Church have taught without hestitation or variation that certain acts preventing procreation are gravely sinful. No Catholic theologian has ever taught, ‘Contraception is a good act.’ The teaching on contraception is clear and apparently fixed forever. (John T. Noonan, Jr., Contraception: A History of Its Treatment by the Catholic Theologians and Canonists [1965], p. 6)

The use of contraception was condemned by church fathers. (Contraception: Early Church Teaching, by William Klimon; see much more in this article)

I think the NT does allow for divorce (for desertion and infidelity). [p. 114]

It does not:

Biblical Evidence for the Prohibition of Divorce [2004]

Nor did the early Church allow it along with remarriage:

Divorce: Early Church Teaching [Oct. 1998]

The counsel of Trent, part 2

[Hays tackles prooftexts for relics (2 Kgs 13:21; Acts 5:15; 19:11-12)]

God can assign a supernatural effect to a natural object. If you tampered with sacred furniture in the tabernacle, there were catastrophic consequences. That, however, creates no presumption that natural objects produce supernatural effects. To the contrary, that’s very rare. [p. 118]

They would only do that if God intervened and wanted them to. And according to the Bible, He certainly does. 2 Kings 13:21 describes a dead man being raised by mere contact with the prophet Elisha’s bones. Acts 5:15 strongly implies that Peter’s shadow could heal people. And Acts 19:11-12 teaches that “handkerchiefs or aprons” that touched Paul’s body healed the sick and caused demons to depart the possessed. If all of these are not proofs of the truthfulness of the Catholic belief in relics, I don’t know what is. Hays can’t defeat them with one of his irrelevant, sophistical faux-distinctions.

None of [these] prooftexts involve a divine command or apostolic command. In the passages in Acts, people take the initiative. They take it upon themselves to do this. [p. 118]

The command aspect is perfectly irrelevant. The fact remains that these inanimate objects connected to holy men and saints and apostles caused miracles to occur. If God didn’t want such an outcome, then the miracles would have been condemned as sorcery or what-not in the passage (or would have never occurred in the first place). But they are not. There is not the slightest hint that these events are unsavory or impermissible. In the Old Testament we see a physical item very similar to a relic, and it’s by God’s command: the bronze serpent:

Numbers 21:8-9 And the LORD said to Moses, “Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and every one who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live.” [9] So Moses made a bronze serpent, and set it on a pole; and if a serpent bit any man, he would look at the bronze serpent and live.

So, command or no, God heals through objects. Here’s another example where oil is an instrument of healing:

James 5:14-15 Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; [15] and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.

Their attitude reflects folk theology. Superstitious belief in sympathetic magic. That things that come in contact with a wonder-worker store magic energy. [p. 118]

Exactly as I anticipated, Hays pulls out the silly “sorcery” card. Again, if these things were examples of that, then the text itself (and/or the apostles) would have condemned it, just as Simon’s desire for what he thought was mere magic powers (by purchasing them!) was roundly condemned (Acts 8:9-24). So Hays’ desperate attempt to evade the obvious falls flat. Readers, decide who has the better case from Scripture!

Problem is, these prooftexts are a double-edged sword. How often are ailing people healed when they make a pilgrimage to a Catholic reliquary? When was the last time a dead person was revived by contact with the relic of a Catholic saint? How often are people healed when the pope’s shadow falls on their sickbed? Why doesn’t the pope empty the Gemelli of patients by paying a visit every so often to cast his healing shadow on the patients? [pp. 118-119]

This is the old David Hume-like trick or sophistry that “reasons” as follows: “if a supernatural event is very rare, we ought not to believe that it can ever happen, or ever be in God’s will.” Rarity doesn’t disprove the possibility and actuality of miracles. Frequency is another topic altogether.

[H]e [Trent Horn] justifies the intercession of the saints by asserting the possibility that the saints are aware of what’s happening to us. But there are basic problems with that appeal:

i) It’s possible that an anonymous benefactor will bail me out if I go into debt. Indeed, anonymous benefactors actually exist. Would it therefore be prudent for me to go into debt, in the expectation that an anonymous benefactor will cover my expenses? It’s possible that if I forego cancer therapy, my cancer will undergo spontaneous remission. Indeed, that happens every so often. Would it therefore be prudent for me to forego cancer therapy in the expectation that my cancer will undergo spontaneous remission?

The fact that we can’t eliminate a possibility isn’t justification to count on that possibility being a reality or probability. That’s dangerous make-believe and wishful thinking. [p. 119]

I think Trent made a much weaker argument than he could have in this instance. It’s not just a guess. We know they are aware of earthly events, and we do from inspired revelation: Hebrews 12:1. Here is what I wrote about that passage in my 2004 book, The Catholic Verses: 95 Bible Passages That Confound Protestants (pp. 141-142):

Hebrews 12:1: “Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us,”

Catholics believe that the saints in heaven are aware of happenings on the earth. They are not isolated and removed from earthly realities, but intimately involved in them, as Hebrews 12:1 strongly suggests. Witnesses is the Greek word martus, from which is derived the English word martyr. The reputable Protestant Greek scholars Marvin Vincent and A. T. Robertson comment on this verse as follows:

[T]he idea of spectators is implied, and is really the principal idea. The writer’s picture is that of an arena in which the Christians whom he addresses are contending in a race, while the vast host of the heroes of faith . . . watches the contest from the encircling tiers of the arena, compassing and overhanging it like a cloud, filled with lively interest and sympathy, and lending heavenly aid (Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, IV, 536).

“Cloud of witnesses” (nephos marturon) . . . The metaphor refers to the great amphitheatre with the arena for the runners and the tiers upon tiers of seats rising up like a cloud. The martures here are not mere spectators (theatai), but testifiers (witnesses) who testify from their own experience (11:2, 4-5, 33, 39) to God’s fulfilling promises as shown in chapter 11 (Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, V, 432).

This completely defeats Hays’ reply because his premise is wrong (so was Trent’s, for that matter).

While it’s possible for God to reveal my situation to a “saint”, there are built-in limitations to what a saint can know. To be a creature is to be finite. Even an omnipotent God is restricted by the medium if he works through a natural medium. That’s a self-imposed limitation. God can often circumvent a natural medium. But if God is working through human beings, then there are things that an omnipotent being can’t do via that medium. [p. 119]

I’ve already addressed how God can cause saints to be out of time when they are in heaven; no problem at all. Even in the natural world, people can be in different time-frames if one travels at the speed of light for a while (Einstein’s theory of relativity). 1 John 1:3 states that “we are God’s children now; it does not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when he appears we shall be like him . . .” “Like” God? One way we could be more like Him is for God to give us the ability to be aware of the earth after we die, due in large part to being outside of time, as He is.

There’s no reason to think the Virgin Mary can simultaneously process millions of prayers in hundreds of foreign languages. That’s inhumane. [p. 119]

Yeah? How so? God can make us learn different languages or understand languages we don’t know. He did that with the gift of tongues in the book of Acts.

Invoking divine omnipotence doesn’t solve the problem, since there’s an upper limit on what it means to be human. [p. 119]

Being outside of time is within the range of possibilities for humans. It doesn’t involve us being omniscient or omnipotent; just outside of time!

Assuming the departed can intercede for us, [p. 119]

That’s not even much of an assumption. If they have a “lively interest and sympathy” in us, and lend “heavenly aid”: as Presbyterian linguist Marvin Vincent has stated, then that directly ties into the possibility of praying for us.

the obvious candidate wouldn’t be a Christian who lived and died long before we were born, but a dead relative who knows who we are. [p. 119]

That doesn’t follow if the saints in heaven are much increased in knowledge as well as charity. Hays thinks in purely human terms, but we’re talking about heaven, and how saints will be transformed there:

1 Corinthians 2:9, 11 But, as it is written, “What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him,” . . . [11] . . . So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.

By contrast, the efficacy of evangelical intercessory prayer isn’t based on the merit of the prayer partners. The only merit is the merit of Christ. [p. 120]

That’s not biblical teaching. The most obvious example of merit affecting prayer is James 5:16-18:

. . . The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects. [17] Eli’jah was a man of like nature with ourselves and he prayed fervently that it might not rain, and for three years and six months it did not rain on the earth. [18] Then he prayed again and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth its fruit.

But there is much, much more than that. I compiled as much as I could find in these papers of mine: Bible on Praying Straight to God (vs. Lucas Banzoli) [9-21-22] and Why the Bible Says the Prayers of Holy People Are More Powerful [National Catholic Register, 3-19-19].

***

***

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.