![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2023\/02\/Cover-330x498-1.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n[book and purchase information<\/a>]<\/p>\n The late Steve Hays (please pray for his soul) was a Protestant Reformed, anti-Catholic apologist, very active online, who ran the site, Triablogue<\/em>. I am critiquing his article about the papacy and Catholic Church government in general, entitled \u201cBack to Babylon-1\u201d<\/a> (5-2-04). His words will be in\u00a0blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n I anticipate some objecting by thinking, \u201cwhy go after the writing of a dead man who can\u2019t respond<\/em>?\u201d My reply is twofold:<\/p>\n 1) his material is still out there, and from where Catholics sit, it is still harming those who read it and accept the relentless misrepresentations and trashings of Catholicism found therein.<\/p>\n 2) Steve Hays never truly responded to me anyway. He would merely \u201ctoy\u201d with my arguments, as if the whole undertaking were a joke, always in an utterly condescending, sophistical manner and in-between ten million personal insults<\/a> (including his repeated insistence that I was not a real, true-blue Catholic). So there is little difference: there is no dialogue possible now, but it never took pace when he was alive, either. Accordingly, eventually he blocked me at Triablogue<\/em> and I continue to be utterly ignored when I critique the top guy there now<\/em>: Jason Engwer (who used to engage in many lengthy debates with me in the early 2000s). The dubious ideas and falsehoods can and should still be responded to by apologists like myself, as long as they remain online for anyone to read. In other words, it\u2019s public material and fair game.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n That<\/em> out of the way, I proceed. See my past responses to Hays, related to the rule of faith:<\/p>\n 2 Thessalonians 2:15 & Tradition<\/a>\u00a0[5-12-20]<\/p>\n 1 Timothy 3:15 = Church Infallibility<\/a>\u00a0[5-14-20]<\/p>\n Does\u00a0Sola Scriptura<\/em>\u00a0Create Chaos?<\/a>\u00a0[5-15-20]<\/p>\n Debate: Matthew 16:18-19 & the Papacy (vs. Steve Hays)<\/a>\u00a0[10-30-21]<\/p>\n Sola Scriptura<\/em>: Self-Refuting? (vs. Steve Hays)<\/a>\u00a0[12-14-21]<\/p>\n Traditionally, Roman Catholicism has held that sola Scriptura<\/em> is an inadequate rule of faith. And a number of one-time Evangelicals have converted to Rome for the same reason. This contention has two parts: (i) that sola Scriptura<\/em> is inadequate and (ii) a Magisterium is the logical alternative to (i).<\/span><\/p>\n Hays misses the main underlying reason why we reject sola Scriptura<\/em>: it\u2019s not a biblical<\/em> doctrine, and was never held by the Church fathers<\/em>, as I have proven again and again.<\/p>\n Even if (i) were a sound argument, it wouldn\u2019t automatically follow that (ii) is the logical alternative. That demands a separate argument.<\/span><\/p>\n That\u2019s technically or logically correct, and we\u2019ll get to that. But there are only so many choices in the real world. If the Protestant system is fatally defective, due to a false rule of faith, then that leaves Catholicism and Orthodoxy as the only live alternatives (assuming there is some remnant of Christianity left in the world).<\/p>\n I have already examined 10 objections to sola scriptura and found them wanting; <\/span><\/p>\n And I\u2019ll guarantee that he never proved that sola Scriptura<\/em> was actually taught<\/em> in Holy Scripture. I submit that no Protestant has ever<\/em> shown that. They simply assume it. Once in a while they actually openly admit<\/em> this. For example, Jason Engwer wrote:<\/p>\n Lutheran pastor Jordan Cooper expressed the same idea in his video, \u201cA Defense of\u00a0Sola Scriptura<\/em>\u201c<\/a> (3-12-19):<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n I think the question that we have is: do we have to find a particular Scripture that says Scripture is the only authority? And I just don\u2019t think we\u00a0have<\/em>\u00a0to. We\u00a0don\u2019t<\/em>. There\u2019s nothing in \u2014 you can\u2019t find \u2014 in any of Paul\u2019s letters, for example, . . . \u201cby the way, Scripture is the only authority and traditions are not an authority and there is no magisterium that is given some kind of infallible authority to pass on infallible teachings.\u201d It seems like a lot of Roman Catholic apologists think that for Protestants to defend their position, that they have to find a text that says that.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0[1:39-2:14]<\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Thanks for your refreshing honesty, guys. You happily confirm what I\u2019ve been arguing for now 32 years. And if it\u2019s not stated in the Bible, it\u2019s self-refuting<\/em>\u00a0or self-defeating<\/em><\/a>, period, end of story. Game, set, match.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n now I\u2019ll examine the case for the Magisterium\u2014or divine teaching office of the church.<\/span><\/p>\n Bring it on!<\/p>\n In principle, sacred tradition (inclusive of Scripture) comprises the Catholic rule of faith. In practice, though, what qualifies as authoritative tradition and authoritative exegesis is determined by the Magisterium, headed by the Pope.<\/span><\/p>\n Authoritative interpretation is always logically required in any Christian system. Ours is the \u201cthree-legged stool\u201d which is taught in the Bible: Bible-Tradition-Church. Documents can\u2019t interpret themselves. Hence, we have hundreds of thousands of pages of legal analysis of the US Constitution. Protestants play the game that each one is ultimately an individual and \u201cjust goes by the Bible,\u201d etc.<\/p>\n In fact, authoritative interpretation or \u201cProtestant tradition\u201d will always be found without much trouble, whether it\u2019s John Calvin (Hays\u2019 master) and his Institutes<\/em>\u00a0 or various creeds and confessions. They hasten to add that the private judgment of each Protestant reigns supreme, but if that were truly the case, why have these other documents at all? We can back up our entire system in a way that Protestantism cannot, and in the case of sola Scriptura<\/em>, we see at least a few of them finally honestly admitting this after 500 years.<\/p>\n Therefore, the case for the Catholic rule of faith (sacred tradition) is contingent on the case for the Magisterium, which is\u2014in turn\u2014contingent on the case for the papacy in particular. So this chapter will emphasize the papacy.<\/span><\/p>\n It can all be defended.<\/p>\n I. Supreme teacher in abstentia<\/span><\/p>\n According to Catholicism, the Pope is the supreme teacher of the church. But if that were the case, it is passing strange that of the 260 plus men\u2014give or take an antipope\u2014who have occupied the office, not one has been a theologian of the first rank. The intellectual firepower has come further down the chain-of-command, viz., Anselm or Aquinas, Augustine or Bonaventura, Geach or Lonergan, Maritain or Newman, Rahner or Scheeben, Scotus, Suarez or von Balthasar. It seems incongruous, to say the least, that the real shapers of Catholic thought are not the Popes, but lowly priests and laymen, with an occasional bishop thrown in. When papal advisors are more distinguished teachers than the Pope is, it makes me wonder what the job qualifications are for the papacy. It certainly doesn\u2019t seem to be based on the principle of merit pay.<\/span><\/p>\n I deny his negative claim. Certainly, even in our own time, Pope St. John Paul the Great and especially Pope Benedict XVI were theologians of the first rank. There were many more, such as Pope Leo XIII, and much further back, Pope St. Leo the Great and Pope St. Gregory the Great: both considered Church fathers (and they are Doctors of the Church as well) and hence included in most collections of those men (such as Schaff\u2019s 38-volume edition<\/a>).<\/p>\n But that said, being a \u201cgreat theologian\u201d is not a job requirement of the papacy in the first place. The papacy is the leader and head of the Church, and the final say (\u201cthe buck stops here,\u201d so to speak). We believe that he is protected by God when he makes infallible pronouncements, in a way that no theologian is. But it\u2019s often the case, generally speaking, that the real thinking power and intellectual activity occurs further down the \u201cchain of authority\u201d in any institution. A president of a university or large corporation is only very rarely the top mind or cutting-edge intellect. In that sense, the Catholic Church is no different, excepting the aspect of direct divine protection from error in extraordinary circumstances.<\/p>\n But that\u2019s not the worst of it. Whenever a case had to be made in defense of papal prerogatives during the Reformation and Counter-Reformation, who made it? Wouldn\u2019t the Pope be the natural candidate to present the case for his own preeminence? But, no. Once again, none the big guns were Popes, but men who spoke on behalf of the papacy, viz., Fisher, Eck, Cajetan, Bellarmine and Stapleton. Now if the Pope is supposed to be the supreme teacher of the Church, then why can\u2019t he speak for himself? Can\u2019t he even make a case for himself? If he isn\u2019t up to the job of laying out his own credentials for the job, then what does that say about his credentials for the job?<\/span><\/p>\n Again, aside from what I stated above, this is usually the case in any<\/em> Christian communion. So for example, the great figures or minds in Anglicanism, such as John Wesley and John Henry Newman before 1845, were priests, and not Archbishops of Canterbury. Few would say that, for example, the President of one of the Lutheran synods or of the Southern Baptist Convention would or should be the most profound theologian of those communions. Billy Graham was never the head of any denomination. Probably a lot of this has to do with the fact that leaders and bosses are often bogged down with administrative or \u201cbusiness\u201d duties<\/em>, and thinkers and activists normally hate those things, or are not qualified for them. They have more \u201cpressing\u201d and \u201cexciting\u201d matters and ideas to attend to.<\/p>\n Even John Calvin\u2019s Institutes<\/em> (though in practice almost regarded as infallible) is not the authoritative<\/em> document for Reformed Christians. That would be found in their various confessions. Sometimes such men may happen to also be governmental leaders, as in the case of popes, but it\u2019s not their primary purpose. Why make this an issue<\/em>, then? It\u2019s misguided and wrongheaded (albeit clever, as much of Hays\u2019 rhetoric was).<\/p>\n What would be our impression if a search committee were scheduled to interview a job applicant for a teaching position, yet the applicant didn\u2019t show up in person, but sent a spokesman in his place? The Pope flaunts his divine r\u00e9sum\u00e9, but then hides behind a phalanx of handlers and spin-meisters.<\/span><\/p>\n This is simply sophistry, based on the false premise exposed above.<\/p>\n On the one hand, Luther and Calvin were quite able to make their own case, even though their critics denied the right of private judgment. On the other hand, their critics had to do all the talking for the papacy.<\/span><\/p>\n Yes, they made their case, and they were not denominational leaders in the way that the pope functions (which is precisely my point<\/em>). They were the intellectual and theological leaders and figureheads of the Protestant Revolt or Revolution. I wish I had a dime for every time a Lutheran (quite needlessly) pointed out to me that Luther\u2019s writings have no binding authority for the individual Lutheran. Rather, that role is played by the Book of Concord (which includes<\/em> Luther\u2019s and his successor Melanchthon\u2019s writings, but only a small portion<\/em> of them).<\/p>\n Apples and oranges. Same with the papacy. This ain\u2019t rocket science. Hays could certainly milk a demonstrably false presence for all it was worth (with his followers blissfully unaware that he was doing it). But the conclusions are no more compelling than the miserable foundation of sand that they are drawn from.<\/p>\n II. Bashful Magisterium.<\/span><\/p>\n For a denomination that regards the right of private judgment as so spiritually perilous, the Roman Church has shown itself to be remarkably shy about formally and infallibly committing itself on a wide range of fundamental questions in faith and morals. <\/span><\/p>\n One can only chuckle that we get slammed for having so many infallible dogmas and doctrines, but also simultaneously for not infallibly expounding on everything<\/em>, (as if this is what our system is or should be), including the best recipe for apple pie. That\u2019s anti-Catholicism: Catholicism is and must<\/em> be wrong, no matter what<\/em> it does or states.<\/p>\n Why has an ecumenical council never issued an infallible catechism? <\/span><\/p>\n Because that\u2019s a contradiction in terms. Infallible doctrines are relatively rare occurrences, and so that characteristic could never apply to an entire catechism. This is elementary, but as usual, Hays didn\u2019t get<\/em> it. And in his stupefied ignorance of Catholicism as it actually is and seeks to be, he inevitably descended to mockery and caricature.<\/p>\n Why has the papacy never produced an ex cathedra<\/em> commentary?<\/span><\/p>\n Again, this fundamentally misunderstands the relationship of Bible commentary and exegesis to Catholic authority. The Church does not force Catholics to believe thus-and-so about every passage in the Bible. In fact, I would say it does so far less than the system of Calvinism does. In fact, Catholic exegetes are quite free, and the Church has only authoritatively proclaimed an binding, authoritative interpretation for only seven to nine Bible verses<\/a>.<\/p>\n But what we instead witness is an organization that brandishes maximal authority-claims while venturing minimal truth-claims. It bears a sneaky resemblance to a psychic who dons an air of superior foresight while remaining strangely vague about names, dates, and places.<\/span><\/p>\n Classic and textbook, quintessential Hays mockery-caricature. This sort of thing is why I mostly refused to interact with his criticisms. It was unworthy of serious response. Yet people are still being led astray by it (and the apologist is duty-bound to try to offer a better way). This is the constant \u201ctrial of patience\u201d of the Catholic apologist. How much can we take<\/em> of such material without being slowly driven insane? Yet by God\u2019s grace only we plunge ahead . . .<\/p>\n Shouldn\u2019t one of the singular advantages of a divine teaching office be to anticipate and head-up a major controversy before it erupts, rather than engage in damage control? How was the Reformation even possible with a living Magisterium on the scene?<\/span><\/p>\n Again, a scenario which a Christian communion primarily responds<\/em> to heresies is nothing unusual or out of the ordinary. It was what the Church fathers did all the time. Entire ecumenical councils were based on that. Their task wasn\u2019t to predict coming heresies, but to dissect existing and increasingly influential ones. Everybody knows this (and Steve did, too, but he simply couldn\u2019t resist sophistry). Cardinal Newman said something like, \u201cno doctrine is defined [i.e., fully developed] until it is violated.\u201d<\/p>\n A so-called \u201cReformation\u201d was possible because men are rebellious against authority by nature, and because (yes) the Catholic Church needed reform as she always does at all times. The myth, however, is that Protestantism was so extraordinarily superior; as if it had no<\/em> serious shortcomings in practice (before we even get<\/em> to doctrine) that it excoriated Catholicism for having. It\u2019s the double standard and myth-making and \u201cProtestant hagiography\u201d that I never ever bow to. I know too much, and can never go back to my former \u201cbrainwashed evangelical\u201d ignorance about the history and nature of Catholicism.<\/p>\n III. Without Intertestamental precedent:<\/span><\/p>\n A traditional pillar of the papal apologetic has been the contention that unless a living Magisterium, headed by the Pope, existed throughout the life of the Church, the people of God would lapse into heresy and apostasy.<\/span><\/p>\n But as a matter of fact, this surmise has already been put to the test. During the Intertestamental period\u2014an interval of about 400 years between the composition of the Old and New Testaments\u2014there was no charismatic office in place to offer the people infallible guidance in faith and morals or unerring interpretations of the law and the prophets. Yet compared with the times leading up to the Assyrian deportation and Babylonian exile, when the people did enjoy special guidance, and went awhoring all the same, this is one of the more zealous chapters in the nation\u2019s history.<\/span><\/p>\n During the Intertestamental period, the people\u2019s only recourse was to sola scriptura<\/em>\u2014which then amounted to the OT canon. In the providence of God, there was nothing equivalent to a Magisterium during the Intertestamental period.<\/span><\/p>\n To directly refute Hays\u2019 contentions here, then, we must analyze whether this period was as glorious and \u201corthodox\u201d as Hays seems to assume.\u00a0I would point to the emergence of the<\/span> Sadducees<\/a> in the 2nd c. BC. They were the \u201ctheological liberals\u201d of their time and precisely prove my point. I made an argument about them with regard to the rule of faith in ancient Israel in a 1999 article<\/a> (abridged for my present purposes):\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The Sadducees were much more \u201cheretical.\u201d They rejected the future resurrection and the soul, the afterlife, rewards and retribution, demons and angels, and predestinarianism. Christian Pharisees are referred to in Acts 15:5 and Philippians 3:5, but never Christian Sadducees. The Sadducees\u2019 following was found mainly in the upper classes, and was almost non-existent among the common people.<\/span><\/p>\n The Sadducees also rejected all \u201coral Torah,\u201d \u2014 the traditional interpretation of the written that was of central importance in rabbinic Judaism. So we can summarize as follows:<\/span><\/p>\n A) The Sadducees were obviously the elitist \u201cliberals\u201d and \u201cheterodox\u201d amongst the Jews of their time.<\/span><\/p>\n B) But the Sadducees were also the\u00a0sola Scripturists<\/i>\u00a0of their time.<\/span><\/p>\n C) Christianity adopted wholesale the very \u201cpostbiblical\u201d doctrines which the Sadducees rejected and which the Pharisees accepted: resurrection, belief in angels and spirits, the soul, the afterlife, eternal reward or damnation, and the belief in angels and demons.<\/span><\/p>\n D) But these doctrines were notable for their marked development after the biblical Old Testament canon was complete, especially in Jewish apocalyptic literature, part of Jewish codified oral tradition.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n The very existence of the Sadducees is a testament (no pun intended) to what happens if a principle of sola Scriptura<\/em> is followed (as in their own case), and tradition (including oral tradition) is rejected: heterodoxy. Therefore, I assert what Hays denied: without a strong theological authority in place, the Jews would and indeed did<\/span> \u201clapse into heresy and apostasy\u201d: in the case of the Sadducees. The Essenes, another prominent Jewish sect that began in the 2nd c. BC, also denied the resurrection of the body. The Pharisees (like Christians) affirmed it, and oral law received on Mt. Sinai and oral tradition. So now we see that two of the three predominant Jewish groups of the period \u201clapse[d] into heresy\u201d<\/span>: despite Hays\u2019 claims to the contrary. Prior to these unfortunate developments, t<\/span><\/span>he Jews had accepted a doctrine of the afterlife, and at length, even a bodily resurrection. See:<\/span><\/p>\n Jewish and Old Testament Views of Hell and Eternal Punishment<\/a>\u00a0[4-14-04]<\/p>\n Salvation and Eternal Afterlife in the Old Testament<\/a>\u00a0[8-31-19]<\/p>\n It developed slowly, but was in place when Jesus came onto the scene. The Sadducees and the Essenes (like the various heretical sects of Church history) did their best to undermine these beliefs, in their heresy.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n IV. Without OT precedent:<\/span><\/p>\n Even during the dispensation of OT inspiration, special revelation was sporadic (cf.\u00a01 Sam 3:1<\/a>). While the nation as a whole fell away, God\u2019s word sufficed to preserve his elect. Rahner himself admits that, \u201cbefore the church of Christ this absolute authority of a teaching office did not exist. The OT knew of no absolute and formal teaching authority which was recognized as such. Its \u2018official\u2019 representatives themselves could fall away from God, his revelation and his grace,\u201d Foundations of Christian Faith (Seabury 1990), 378.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cThere was no infallible teaching authority\u2014not even before the death of Christ\u2014in the OT, in the sense of a permanent institution, which had this inerrant character. There were prophets every now and again. But there was no infallible Church,\u201d Inspiration in the Bible (Herder & Herder, 1961), 52.<\/span><\/p>\n The is largely untrue. I dealt with this sort of clever but misguided argument in the following dialogue: Dialogue with a Lutheran on Ecclesiology & OT Indefectibility Analogies<\/a> (vs. Nathan Rinne) [11-22-11] and in my articles: Levites and the Old Covenant System vs.\u00a0Sola Scriptura<\/em>\u00a0<\/a>[4-9-06]<\/p>\n OT Levites & Priests: Closer to\u00a0Sola Scriptura<\/em>\u00a0or Catholicism?<\/a>\u00a0[4-9-06]<\/p>\n Old Testament Analogies to the Catholic Rule of Faith and Binding Authority \/ Disanalogies to\u00a0Sola Scriptura<\/em><\/a>\u00a0[4-9-06]<\/p>\n V. Nonconformity in the OT:<\/span><\/p>\n In this section, Hays delves into the Pharisees and especially Matthew 23:2-3. I have dealt with these issues at extreme length (no need to repeat myself):<\/p>\n VI. Vox populi, vox Dei?<\/span><\/p>\n Vatican II grants that the community of faith is infallible in faith and morals when a popular consensus obtains (Lumen Gentium 12). But if that is so, then why bother with a Magisterium at all?<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n Catholicism has invoked three Petrine prooftexts in support of papal primacy<\/span> (Mt 16:18-19<\/a>;\u00a0Lk 22:32<\/a>;\u00a0Jn 21:15-17<\/a>). But this appeal falls flat on numerous counts:<\/span><\/p>\n 1. Non-sequitur:<\/span><\/p>\n Even if the passages did imply Petrine primacy, that doesn\u2019t imply papal primacy.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n We certainly can<\/em> in precisely the same way that the OT typology of \u201cDavid as the prototype of the Messiah\u201d implies Jesus Christ, or how Elijah was a prototype for John the Baptist, etc.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n
\n*
\nSola Scriptura<\/em>, the Old Testament, & Ancient Jewish Practice<\/a> [1999]
\n*
\nInspired & Infallible Prophets: Analogy to Infallible Popes<\/a> [2-2-10]<\/p>\n\n