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.

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.

Denominationalism; Salvation Outside the Church; Catholic & Protestant Baptism; Catholic Scholars; Doctrinal Development

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]

Needle in a haystack

There’s a popular Catholic trope that goes something like this: Protestantism poses a dilemma for Protestants: why do you hope to find and join the right church when there are 30,000 candidates to sift through? There are several problems with this trope:

i) “The 30,000 denominations” is an artificial, misleading figure, as even Catholic apologists like Trent Horn admit. [p. 102]

I noted that this was an inaccurate number in an article dated 9-4-04. But it is certainly “many thousands” and anything beyond “one church” and “one faith” is simply biblically unsustainable. Denominationalism is an ongoing scandal and embarrassment that Protestantism can never resolve, because its rule of faith, sola Scriptura, doesn’t allow it to, and is the cause of the chaotic, relativist endless division and creation of new sects.

Catholics are unconsciously superimposing a Catholic paradigm on Protestants. It’s not a Protestant dilemma. It’s not a conundrum internal to Protestant theology. It’s only a dilemma if you take Catholic ecclesiology as the frame of reference. [p. 102]

This is untrue. It’s a “dilemma” and a “conundrum” and an outrage because it’s massively, grotesquely against biblical teaching. I could present all of that evidence again here, but I already have, so readers can simply follow the links:

Denominationalism and Sectarianism: An Anti-Biblical Scandal [1996]

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

Bible on Submission to Church & Apostolic Tradition / Biblical Condemnation of the Rebellious & Schismatic Aspects of the Protestant Revolt [8-27-11]

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

Catholicism is True and Denominationalism is Anti-Biblical [National Catholic Register, 6-27-17]

Sectarianism & Denominationalism: Reply to Calvin #6 [12-19-18]

Does Sola Scriptura Create Chaos? (vs. Steve Hays) [5-15-20]

Unbiblical Denominations (vs. Lucas Banzoli) [6-9-22]

In Protestant theology, salvation isn’t contingent on locating and joining “the right church”. [p. 102]

Even if that is so, it doesn’t get Protestants off the hook, insofar as they brazenly defy and ignore biblical injunctions about unity and one Church only being in existence. They claim to be uniquely Bible followers. Very well, then, I challenge them to do that with regard to this topic.

In Protestant theology, salvation is mediated by Jesus, the Bible, and the Holy Spirit, not the church. While the church often plays a vital role in disseminating the Gospel, in Protestant theology, we’re not saved through the church in the traditional Catholic sense, where saving grace is piped through sacramental channels. [p. 102]

Hays claimed to speak for all “Protestant theology,” but he did not. John Calvin was a pretty influential Protestant leader, and Hays follows his theology (except I guess, in this matter). He wrote:

[T]here is no other means of entering into life unless she conceive us in the womb and give us birth, unless she nourish us at her breasts, and, in short, keep us under her charge and government, until, divested of mortal flesh, we become like the angels (Mt. 22:30). For our weakness does not permit us to leave the school until we have spent our whole lives as scholars. Moreover, beyond the pale of the Church no forgiveness of sins, no salvation, can be hoped for, as Isaiah and Joel testify (Isa. 37:32; Joel 2:32). . . . the abandonment of the Church is always fatal. (Institutes of the Christian Religion, IV, 1:4; cf. 1:8, 10, 20, 22)

Not only Calvin, but Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism, believed this:

[O]utside the Christian church there is no truth, no Christ, no salvation. (Sermons II, ed. Hans J. Hillerbrand; Sermon for the Early Christmas Service, Luke 2 [:15-20], 25 December 1521, tr. John G. Kunstmann; in Luther’s Works, vol. 52)

And “sacramental channels” weren’t lacking in Protestantism, either, since both Luther and Calvin regarded baptism as a sacrament. For Luther it was regenerative, for Calvin maybe so (scholars differ). And both accepted their prior Catholic baptisms as valid (hence, neither was “rebaptized”). And the Catholic Church accepts the validity of Protestant baptism. Luther and Calvin both thought the Eucharist was a sacrament. Luther believed in the real presence and even in the adoration of the host. Calvin believed in a mystical presence of Jesus.

We don’t need to find a needle in a haystack. God doesn’t make salvation that elusive. We don’t need to comb through 30,000 straws to find the needle. It’s not about us finding God but God finding us. And the knowledge of salvation is available through multiple sources. In evangelical theology, you don’t have to be in union and communion with “the right church” to be in union and communion with God. [p. 102]

Apparently Luther and Calvin weren’t “evangelical” then, and we are to accept Oracle Lawgiver Steve Hays’ word on this rather than theirs. Both Luther and Calvin also absolutely detested and despised sectarianism and denominationalism, too, whereas Hays thought it was fine and dandy; not an issue of concern at all!

According to the traditional paradigm, you had to receive valid sacraments to be saved. Valid sacraments were dispensed by Roman Catholic priests. There was no salvation outside the Roman sacramental system. But that’s been shredded by post-Vatican II theology. [p. 102]

Sheer nonsense. I dealt to an extent with salvation outside the Church in an earlier installment. But here is the Council of Trent, Session VII (3 March 1547), Canons on Baptism:

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the baptism which is even given by heretics in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, with the intention of doing what the Church doth, is not true baptism; let him be anathema.

Vatican II concurs with a more developed and complementary (not contradictory) version:

For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. . . .  it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church. (Unitatis Redintegratio [1964], Decree on Ecumenism [3] )

Wouldn’t it have been nice if Hays had taken all of ten minutes to look up these things, rather than present a distorted, false version of what the Catholic Church supposedly teaches (that he read in a Jack Chick tract or something)? His research skills leave quite a bit to be desired, to put it mildly. It seems as if he just didn’t care whether he accurately portrayed Catholic doctrines or not. Rather, he lazily set forth a gross caricature, in order to make Catholicism look as unappealing and false as possible. In other words, the irrational emotions and bigotry of standard anti-Catholicism once again have caused an otherwise above-average mind to sink into silliness and falsehoods when describing the Catholic Church and her supposed teachings. But I have documented what we actually teach.

At best, Roman Catholicism has stretched the definition of “the Church” so that you can be in union and communion with “the Church” even if you’re completely ignorant of Catholic theology, have never received Catholic sacraments. [p. 103]

Hays exhibits his rank ignorance yet again. Protestant trinitarian baptism is a “Catholic” sacrament in our view. The Protestant has received a legitimate, bona fide sacrament, and one that regenerates and makes the recipient part of the Body of Christ. Now it’s quite true that a baptized Protestant might otherwise be very ignorant of Catholic theology, but they have received a Catholic sacrament, and in many cases, Protestant marriages are a second Catholic sacrament.

On that expansive redefinition, “the Church” becomes like oxygen: something universally available. Everyone can breathe it. [p. 103]

That’s untrue as well. One has to be baptized. There are billions of people in the world who never have been, so this is hardly “universal.”

Brother, can you paradigm?

As I was talking to this convert, I mentioned dramatic reversals in Catholic theology, such as salvation outside the church, 

This is absolutely classic, textbook Hays sophistry (combined with a stubborn ignorance). There is no reversal of “no salvation outside the Church.” Dominus Iesus (2000), put out by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), under Cardinal Ratzinger (later, Pope Benedict XVI), reiterated the doctrine of “no salvation outside the Church.” It stated:

20. . . . Above all else, it must be firmly believed that “the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5), and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door”‌.⁷⁷ This doctrine must not be set against the universal salvific will of God (cf. 1 Tim 2:4); “it is necessary to keep these two truths together, namely, the real possibility of salvation in Christ for all mankind and the necessity of the Church for this salvation”‌.⁷⁸

The Church is the “universal sacrament of salvation”‌,⁷⁹ since, united always in a mysterious way to the Saviour Jesus Christ, her Head, and subordinated to him, she has, in God’s plan, an indispensable relationship with the salvation of every human being.⁸⁰  For those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church, “salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit”‌;⁸¹ it has a relationship with the Church, which “according to the plan of the Father, has her origin in the mission of the Son and the Holy Spirit”‌.⁸²

21.  With respect to the way in which the salvific grace of God – which is always given by means of Christ in the Spirit and has a mysterious relationship to the Church – comes to individual non-Christians, the Second Vatican Council limited itself to the statement that God bestows it “in ways known to himself”‌.⁸³  Theologians are seeking to understand this question more fully.  Their work is to be encouraged, since it is certainly useful for understanding better God’s salvific plan and the ways in which it is accomplished. However, from what has been stated above about the mediation of Jesus Christ and the “unique and special relationship”‌⁸⁴ which the Church has with the kingdom of God among men – which in substance is the universal kingdom of Christ the Saviour – it is clear that it would be contrary to the faith to consider the Church as one way of salvation alongside those constituted by the other religions, seen as complementary to the Church or substantially equivalent to her, even if these are said to be converging with the Church toward the eschatological kingdom of God. . . .

22.  With the coming of the Saviour Jesus Christ, God has willed that the Church founded by him be the instrument for the salvation of all humanity (cf. Acts 17:30-31).⁹⁰

FOOTNOTES

(78) John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptoris missio, 9; cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 846-847.

(79) Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 48.

(80) Cf. St. Cyprian, De catholicae ecclesiae unitate, 6: CCSL 3, 253-254; St. Irenaeus, Adversus haereses, III, 24, 1: SC 211, 472-474.

(81) John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptoris missio, 10.

(82) Second Vatican Council, Decree Ad gentes, 2. The famous formula extra Ecclesiam nullus omnino salvatur is to be interpreted in this sense (cf. Fourth Lateran Council, Cap. 1. De fide catholica: DS 802). Cf. also the Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston: DS 3866-3872.

(83) Second Vatican Council, Decree Ad gentes, 7.

(84) John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptoris missio, 18.

(90) Cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 17; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptoris missio, 11.

and the contrast between mainstream Catholic Bible scholarship and the anti-modernist injunctions of the BPC c. Leo XIII. [p. 104]

Here Hays — typically — pits theologically liberal Catholic scholars against the actual magisterium of the Church. He pretends that liberal scholars are both “mainstream” and orthodox, when in fact they are not. His favorite Catholic scholar, whom he places in this category, is Raymond Brown, who was certainly a heterodox dissident in many ways, as I have documented. The orthodox Catholic scholar is the one who accepts all Church teachings, including popes and bishops.

I personally knew or know several of these, such as the late Servant of God Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J., who was probably the best American catechist prior to the Catholic Catechism, and was a close advisor to Pope St. Paul VI and St. Teresa of Calcutta and her Missionaries of Charity (he received me into the Church and baptized my first two children), Dr. Robert Fastiggi, Professor of Systematic Theology at Sacred Heart Seminary in Detroit, who translated and edited the latest revision of Denzinger’s Enchiridion: the go-to reference source for all of Catholic dogmas and doctrine, Dr. Scott Hahn, etc. But instead, Hays loved to habitually cite known dissidents and pretend that they represented “official” Catholic teaching.

It became evident that I was drawing a blank. The convert had no idea what I was referring to. [p. 104]

I do (as one who converted 32 years ago), and I know that it’s sophistry and misrepresentation, as I am proving.

He’s ignorant of many historical facts about Catholicism which he needs to know to properly assess the evidence for or against Catholicism. [p. 104]

That’s an exactly accurate description of Hays himself! As a Protestant apologist, he should have gotten the facts straight about that which he opposed, but (like every anti-Catholic apologist I have ever encountered, who didn’t become a Catholic) he didn’t.

And that’s because his point of entry into Catholicism isn’t primarily evidential; rather, he’s smitten by the idea of Catholicism. [p. 104]

Hays was smitten by his own imaginary, fictional, straw-man, caricatured version of Catholicism, and doesn’t seem to have known (if we are to be as charitable as we can be) that it was that.

Is the Catholic church 2000 years old?

Catholic apologists compare their “2000-year-old” church to upstart Protestant denominations. I’ve discussed that before, but I’ll expand on that:

1. Suppose a young couple buys a Fixer Upper. At the time it’s all they can afford on their meager income. As their income rises, they remodel the house. As their income continues to rise, they make additions on either side. Finally, they demolish the original house, preserve the additions, and build a new house in-between the flankers. Is the final house the same house as the original house?

There’s a kind of historical continuity in play. But no part of the original house exists. It’s been replaced, part by part. And not even by the same kinds of parts, but different kinds of parts. It’s unrecognizable compared to the Fixer Upper. So mere historical continuity doesn’t make it the same house or even similar to the original house.

Moreover, even if some of the original parts were preserved, it’s undergone so much change that it’s equivocal to say it’s the same house. It’s the same in some respects but not the same in key respects. [p. 105]

This is the ridiculous caricature / analogy to the Catholic Church, in Hays’ mind: “no part of the original house exists. It’s been replaced, part [i.e., doctrine] by part . . . but different kinds of parts.” Could he possibly have been serious; did he have a straight face, spewing this nonsense? It seems that he was and did!

To some extent, Protestant theology was new. It emerged in the 16C. However, it didn’t pop in out of the blue. In many respects it had theological antecedents. And Protestants claim it’s older than Catholicism because it represents a restoration of biblical theology, from which Catholicism deviated. [p. 105]

I see. Earlier, Hays argued that Church history was unnecessary and altogether dispensable; that the “church” could arise anew at any time (who needs history or precedent?). He was radically ahistorical (I guess that was his mood that day). Now, contradicting himself, he talks of “antecedents” and says that there was an original “biblical theology” from which Catholicism departed, and which good ol’ Protestantism restored (hence the term, “Reformation”).

That’s a whole different ball game, and if Protestants are willing to play that game, then there are objective facts like which Church father taught what, and the history of theology, that can be examined to see if they better fit into a Catholic or Protestant paradigm. Protestants claim that the early Church was more like them, but upon the slightest scrutiny, that claim collapses under the weight of actual historical facts. When the early Church is like Protestants, it’s also like us at the same time (i.e., it is only in areas of mutual agreement).

However, the Catholic church under Pope Francis, or even under Pope Benedict XVI or Pope John-Paul II, is a different church than it was under Leo XIII or Pius IX. The Catholic church under Pope Innocent X and Pope Clement IX is a different church from the medieval church. [p. 105]

It’s a developed Church, but not a different Church. It’s the same Church. Hays can’t prove that it isn’t, because that would involve a familiarity with doctrines, dogmas, how our authority structure works; with ecumenical councils and papal encyclicals, and Denzinger (whom Hays never cites at all in his entire book; someone else whom he cited, did once). Hays simply threw out ignorant potshots and mud, then ran back to the woods to hide. If indeed, all of this tremendous change took place, he surely could document it beyond all doubt (from our “official books”), But he never even tries. The emperor is naked. His anti-Catholic “case” is like an onion: one keeps peeling and peeling, but in the end there is no core. It ends up as nothing.

By condemning Jansenism, they anathematized the Augustinian tradition. [p. 105]

Not at all. The Augustinians still exist. How can that be if they were supposedly “anathematized”? The Church condemned certain excesses in Jansenism which had some degree of overlap with Augustinian teaching.

What held an honorable place in Catholicism prior to Calvinism became intolerable after Calvinism. Catholic theology is reactionary. [p. 105]

This is asinine. Hays, true to form, foolishly equates Augustinianism with Calvinism, as if they are exactly the same.

One could give many other examples. There really is no such thing as “the Roman Catholic Church” because it keeps reinventing itself. Just as the Protestant movement emerged in the 16C, Catholicism reemerges in different mutations throughout the course of church history. [p. 105]

The same gigantic caricature, stated a different way . . . Hays dismisses development of doctrine with the wave of a hand and says, in his rank ignorance of the history of theology, “These are ad hoc distinctions superimposed on Catholicism despite the evidence.” [p. 105]

***

***

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.