The late\u00a0<\/span>Steve Hays<\/a> (1959-2020) was a Calvinist (and anti-Catholic) apologist, who was very active on his blog, called<\/span> Triablogue<\/em>\u00a0<\/a>(now continued by Jason Engwer). His 695-page self-published book,<\/span>\u00a0Catholicism<\/em><\/a> \u2014 a collection of articles from his site \u2014 has graciously been made available for free. On 9 September 2006, knowing full well my history of being condemned and vilified by other anti-Catholics (and his buddies) like James White, Eric Svendsen, and James Swan, Hays was quite \u2014 almost extraordinarily \u2014 charitable towards me.<\/span> He wrote then<\/a>:<\/p>\n I don\u2019t think I\u2019ve 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\u2019t dislike him. . . . I don\u2019t think there\u2019s anything malicious about Armstrong\u2014unlike some people who come to mind. In addition, I don\u2019t think I\u2019ve ever said he was unintelligent. For the record, it\u2019s obvious that Armstrong has a quick, nimble mind. . . . The term \u201capostasy\u201d carries with it a heavy presumption that the apostate is a hell-bound reprobate. I think it\u2019s unwarranted to assume that all Catholics or converts to Catholicism are damned.<\/span><\/p>\n 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 \u201can evil character,\u201d<\/span> am<\/span> \u201cactually evil,\u201d <\/span>\u201cego-maniac, narcissist,\u201d \u201cidolater,\u201d<\/span> \u201cself-idolater,\u201d \u201chack who pretends to be a professional apologist,\u201d<\/span>\u00a0given to <\/span>\u201cchicanery,\u201d<\/span> one who doesn\u2019t<\/span> \u201cdo any real research,\u201d \u201ca stalwart enemy of the faith . . .\u00a0 no better than [the atheists]<\/span> Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens,\u201d<\/span> with an intent to<\/span> \u201cdestroy faith in God\u2019s word,\u201d \u201cschizophrenic,\u201d \u201cemotionally unhinged,\u201d<\/span> one who<\/span> \u201cdoesn\u2019t trust in the merit of Christ alone for salvation,\u201d<\/span> \u201chas no peace of mind,\u201d \u201ca bipolar solipsist,\u201d \u201csplit-personality,\u201d<\/span> and a<\/span> \u201cbad\u201d<\/span> man. He wasn\u2019t one to mince words! See<\/span> more gory details<\/a>.<\/p>\n I feel no need whatsoever to reciprocate these silly and sinful insults. I just wanted the record to be known. I\u2019ve always maintained that Hays was a very intelligent man, but habitually a sophist<\/a> in methodology; sincere and well-meaning, but tragically and systematically wrong and misguided regarding Catholicism. That\u2019s what I\u2019m addressing, not the state of his heart and soul (let alone his eternal destiny). It\u2019s a theological discussion. This is one of many<\/em> planned critiques of his book (see<\/span> my reasons why<\/a> I decided to do this). Rather than list them all here, interested readers are directed to the \u201cSteve Hays\u201d section of my<\/span> Anti-Catholicism web page<\/a>, where they will all be listed. My Bible citations are from the RSV. Steve\u2019s words will be in\u00a0<\/span>blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n *****<\/p>\n [Chapter 2: Exposition<\/strong>]<\/span><\/p>\n Catholicism in the dock<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n The claim that critics of Catholicism can\u2019t avoid referencing a tradition of their own is at odds with the common assertion that Protestants are guilty of proposing theological innovations. But a theological position can\u2019t be simultaneously traditional and innovative. [p. 67]<\/span><\/p>\n Here Hays confuses \u201ctraditions of men\u201d: which can start up at any time (i.e., be \u201cnew<\/em> traditions\u201d) and apostolic, patristic tradition, continuing through apostolic succession from 2000 years ago. Everyone has traditions of some sort. They are either openly acknowledged (that\u2019s what Catholics do), utilized without knowledge and self-awareness that one is doing it (many Protestants who pretend that they just \u201cgo by the Bible,\u201d etc.) or openly acknowledged, but erroneous (Protestant traditions that are false, or heretical \/ schismatic worldviews).<\/p>\n There\u2019s a first time for everything. It\u2019s quite possible for a theologian to make a break with the past. [p. 68]<\/span><\/p>\n Of course it is. But if it goes contrary to apostolic tradition or the Bible or magisterial Church teaching, it ought to be rejected. This is one of the major functions of the One True Church.<\/p>\n The question is whether tradition is regarded as intrinsically authoritative and unquestionable. Tradition as an argument from ecclesiastical authority, that isn\u2019t subject to review. [p. 68]<\/span><\/p>\n Authoritative tradition is determined by a combination of serious historical analysis of Christian history and biblical teaching. When that is done, we maintain that Catholicism wins, hands-down, as the Guardian of apostolic tradition.<\/p>\n That\u2019s quite different from tradition as an interpretation of Scripture that appeals to reason and evidence rather than authority. [p. 68]<\/span><\/p>\n It need not be a dichotomy. Catholic authority is built upon reason, evidence, and the Bible.<\/p>\n There are traditional interpretations in the sense of a tradition that starts out as an interpretation of Scripture, then becomes traditional, and something that starts out as a tradition, then casts about for prooftexts to retroactively validate a tradition that developed independently of Scripture. [p. 68]<\/span><\/p>\n Yes, the latter is an accurate description of both sola Scriptura<\/em> and sola fide<\/em>.<\/p>\n In addition, some traditional interpretations become dogma. The tradition is frozen in place and becomes the foundation for a theological skyscraper. But that\u2019s different from a traditional interpretation that remains subject to scrutiny. Traditional interpretations that must prove themselves to each new Christian generation. Traditions that are responsive to logic and evidence. [p. 68]<\/span><\/p>\n Protestants have their own traditions, even of this sort, too. Does someone want to doubt that? Okay: go to a Calvinist and deny the five tenets of Calvinism (\u201cTULIP\u201d). See how far that gets you.\u00a0 See if that<\/em> entrenched 500-year-old theological tradition is \u201csubject to scrutiny\u201d<\/span> and \u201cresponsive to logic and evidence.\u201d<\/span> So it works out exactly the same way. All Christians have \u201cnon-negotiable\u201d elements. And it has<\/em> to be that way because Christianity is a religious belief-system. Some things in any Christian system are regarded as unquestionably true. It\u2019s only a matter of degree and which beliefs are placed in this category. But for Hays to act as if only Catholics have dogmas which no one can question is, at best, ultra-naive and blind to reality, and at worst, equivocation and sophistry.<\/p>\n Divine guidance is not continuous but occasional and unpredictable. There\u2019s no oracle that answers all our questions. [p. 69]<\/span><\/p>\n It surely is continuous in some<\/em> sense:<\/p>\n Matthew 28:20<\/strong> . . . I am with you always, to the close of the age.<\/p>\n John 14:26<\/strong> \u00a0But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.<\/p>\n John 16:13<\/strong> When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth . . .<\/p>\n Acts 15:28<\/strong> For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things:<\/p>\n Acts 16:3-4<\/strong> Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him; . . . [4] As they went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem.<\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 11:2<\/strong> . . . maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.<\/p>\n 2 Thessalonians 2:15<\/strong> So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.<\/p>\n 1 Timothy 3:15<\/strong> . . . the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Catholic apologists and theologians say the church is subordinate to Scripture rather than above it, but if, according to them, the Magisterium is the arbiter of what Scripture means, then Scripture means whatever the Magisterium says it means. So that puts the Magisterium above Scripture. Scripture can never act as an independent check on the Magisterium if the Magisterium is the definitive interpreter. [pp. 69-70]<\/span><\/p>\n What we say is that Church teaching, tradition, and Scripture are always harmonious in fact<\/em>. They are a \u201cthree-legged stool\u201d and it makes no sense to try to place one above the other (all three \u201clegs\u201d have to be the same length or else the stool is unstable and falls). Scripture is indeed unique in that it is God-breathed in a way that Church teaching and tradition are not; yet it still has to be interpreted<\/em>. We believe that God set up a guiding, teaching Church, led by the Holy Spirit, that is led to infallibly teach, so that believers are not led astray into heresy and other false beliefs and doctrines. Infallibility is a gift from God, to preserve and protect His Church, which in fact provides true interpretations of the inspired, infallible, inerrant revelation of Holy Scripture.<\/p>\n Moreover, in Jn 14-16, Jesus didn\u2019t promise the Spirit to \u201cthe Church\u201d, much less the pope or the Roman Magisterium, but to the Eleven. This is a classic example of how Catholics read out of Scripture what they first read into Scripture. [p. 70]<\/span><\/p>\n They represent the Church, as its prototypes. When they got together as part of this Church in the council of Jerusalem (\u201cThe apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter\u201d: Acts 15:6), they showed that they were now leaders in the Church, not just atomistic individuals (which is the false Protestant tendency). The Holy Spirit then led these \u201capostles and<\/em> [non-apostle] elders\u201d (\u201cit has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us\u201d: Acts 15:28) to make an authoritative pronouncement, binding on believers throughout Asia Minor (Turkey). Paul himself \u201cdelivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem\u201d (Acts 16:4).<\/p>\n That is the Spirit guiding the Church; it\u2019s infallible, Spirit-led authority, in a way that is contrary to the fundamental principle of authority and rule of faith of Protestantism: sola Scriptura<\/em>, which holds that no authority is infallible except Scripture; therefore, it follows the Jerusalem council could not have been, and we must deny that the Holy Spirit led it, as inspired Scripture states (Acts 15:28). The Church infallibly leads us to theological and spiritual truth because Paul told us so in inspired Scripture, in calling it \u201cthe pillar and bulwark of the truth\u201d (1 Tim 3:15).<\/p>\n Catholic appeal to Scripture is circular inasmuch as Scripture is only allowed to mean whatever meaning the Magisterium assigns to Scripture. [p. 70]<\/span><\/p>\n As explained, God sees to it that the two are in fact one and the same. It\u2019s not circular if there is an equivalence, brought about by God\u2019s supernatural guidance and protection.<\/p>\n But in that event, how do they establish the authority of the Magisterium in the first place? [p. 70]<\/span><\/p>\n From biblical teachings, which I have been outlining, and Jesus\u2019 commission to Peter, and his primacy, as seen in Holy Scripture<\/a>. And from examining Church history to see which Christian body or institution has avoided officially promulgated heresy these two thousand years. Only one has.<\/p>\n To begin with, suppose our interpretations do fall short of certainty? But unless all interpretations are equally uncertain, why is that a problem? [p. 70]<\/span><\/p>\n Merely human ones, collectively, always do<\/em> fall short and contradict each other. That\u2019s precisely why supernatural guidance and an infallible teaching Church was a absolute necessity. Once Protestants rejected an infallible teaching Church and tradition, it doomed itself to chaos and theological relativism, and that\u2019s exactly what their history of many thousands of competing denominations demonstrates.<\/p>\n Why can\u2019t Protestant epistemology appeal to \u201csupernatural faith\u201d? [p. 70]<\/span><\/p>\n It can in areas where it agrees with us. It can\u2019t in the usual instances where there is endless internal contradiction, because that is the logically necessary presence of error and falsehood, which cannot be a good thing. And it can\u2019t in the case of late-arriving theological novelties like sola Scriptura<\/em> and sola fide<\/em>. If these were such bedrock truths, God would have seen to it that the Church taught them all along,. But it didn\u2019t. So they are immediately suspect on that basis alone, along with others.<\/p>\n So long as Christians are heavenbound, why is hermeneutical certitude required? [p. 71]<\/span><\/p>\n Because God desires it, as shown in Paul\u2019s constant insistence upon it.\u00a0I don\u2019t see\u00a0anywhere<\/em>\u00a0indicated in Holy Scripture that only some can know the whole truth of Christian doctrine, or that no one can, or that there are competing schools that contradict each other, rather than one unified Church, or that doctrinal dissensions and disagreements are to be expected and tolerated, let alone praised and glorified as open-mindedness or the status quo, etc. Jesus and the Bible writers (St. John and St. Paul above all) all assume that there is\u00a0one truth<\/em>\u00a0(\u201cthe truth\u201d),\u00a0one tradition<\/em>,\u00a0one doctrine<\/em>: that can be known with God\u2019s help, and the Church\u2019s guidance:<\/p>\n Luke 1:4<\/strong> that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed.<\/p>\n John 1:17<\/strong>\u00a0For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n John 4:23<\/strong>\u00a0But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for such the Father seeks to worship him. (cf. 8:31-32)<\/p>\n John 15:26<\/strong>\u00a0But when the Counselor comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness to me; (cf. 14:6; 16:13; 17:17-19)\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n John 18:37\u00a0<\/strong>. . . For this I was born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Every one who is of the truth hears my voice.\u201d<\/p>\n John 19:35<\/strong>\u00a0He who saw it has borne witness \u2014 his testimony is true, and he knows that he tells the truth \u2014 that you also may believe.<\/p>\n Romans 9:1<\/strong>\u00a0I am speaking the truth in Christ, I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit,<\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 2:13<\/strong>\u00a0And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit. (cf. 2 Cor 13:8)\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Galatians 5:7<\/strong>\u00a0You were running well; who hindered you from obeying the truth?<\/p>\n Ephesians 1:13<\/strong>\u00a0In him you also, who have heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and have believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit,<\/p>\n Ephesians 4:25\u00a0<\/strong>Therefore, putting away falsehood, let every one speak the truth with his neighbor, for we are members one of another.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Ephesians 5:9<\/strong>\u00a0(for the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and true), (cf. 6:14)\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Philippians 4:8<\/strong>\u00a0Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Colossians 1:3-10<\/strong>\u00a0We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you, because we have heard of your faith in Christ Jesus and of the love which you have for all the saints, because of the hope laid up for you in heaven. Of this you have heard before in the word of the truth, the gospel which has come to you, as indeed in the whole world it is bearing fruit and growing \u2014 so among yourselves, from the day you heard and understood the grace of God in truth, as you learned it from Ep\u2019aphras our beloved fellow servant. He is a faithful minister of Christ on our behalf and has made known to us your love in the Spirit. And so, from the day we heard of it, we have not ceased to pray for you, asking that you may be filled with the knowledge of his will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, to lead a life worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God.<\/p>\n 1 Timothy 2:4<\/strong>\u00a0who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n 1 Timothy 3:15<\/strong>\u00a0if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.<\/p>\n 1 Timothy 4:3<\/strong>\u00a0. . . those who believe and know the truth.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n 2 Timothy 2:25<\/strong>\u00a0God may perhaps grant that they will repent and come to know the truth, (cf. 1:14; 3:7-8)\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n 2 Timothy 4:4<\/strong>\u00a0and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths.<\/p>\n Titus 1:1<\/strong>\u00a0Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to further the faith of God\u2019s elect and their knowledge of the truth which accords with godliness,<\/p>\n Titus 1:14<\/strong>\u00a0instead of giving heed to Jewish myths or to commands of men who reject the truth.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Hebrews 10:26<\/strong>\u00a0. . . the knowledge of the truth, . . .<\/p>\n James 5:19<\/strong>\u00a0My brethren, if any one among you wanders from the truth and some one brings him back,\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n 2 Peter 1:12\u00a0<\/strong>Therefore I intend always to remind you of these things, though you know them and are established in the truth that you have. (cf. 1 Pet 1:22)<\/p>\n 1 John 2:27<\/strong>\u00a0but the anointing which you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that any one should teach you; as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie, just as it has taught you, abide in him. (cf. 2:21)<\/p>\n 1 John 3:19\u00a0<\/strong>By this we shall know that we are of the truth, and reassure our hearts before him. (cf. 4:6)<\/p>\n 1 John 5:7\u00a0<\/strong>And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n 2 John 1:1-2<\/strong>\u00a0The elder to the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth, and not only I but also all who know the truth, because of the truth which abides in us and will be with us for ever:\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n 3 John 1:3-4\u00a0<\/strong>For I greatly rejoiced when some of the brethren arrived and testified to the truth of your life, as indeed you do follow the truth. No greater joy can I have than this, to hear that my children follow the truth.<\/p>\n 3 John 1:12<\/strong>\u00a0Deme\u2019trius has testimony from every one, and from the truth itself; I testify to him too, and you know my testimony is true.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Related Reading:<\/p>\n Bible\u00a0vs.\u00a0Denominationalism and Against \u201cPrimary \/\u00a0Secondary\u201d Doctrines<\/a>\u00a0[8-18-06]<\/p>\n \u201cReply to Calvin\u201d #4: \u201cPrimary\u201d & \u201cSecondary\u201d Doctrines<\/a>\u00a0[4-3-17]<\/p>\n Although the Spirit is given to the apostles at Pentecost, that\u2019s inclusive rather than exclusive to the apostles. The Spirit is given to Christians in general, including revelatory dreams and visions (Acts 2:16-17). Throughout the Book of Acts, the gift of the Spirit is common property of Christian converts, including supernatural phenomena. [p. 71]<\/span><\/p>\n Yes, the Bible plainly teaches that the Holy Spirit indwells all Christian believers.<\/p>\n There\u2019s no clerical\/lay dichotomy in that regard. [p. 71]<\/span><\/p>\n There was at the Jerusalem council, because it declared an infallible decision, led by the Holy Spirit, as shown above (which is blatantly<\/em> contrary to sola Scriptura<\/em>; indeed, fatal to it). Only apostles and popes have that sort of infallibility on their own, as individuals and that\u2019s still the \u201cclerical\/lay dichotomy\u201d<\/span> because apostles and popes are on a much higher level than us run-of-the-mill laity.<\/p>\n A basic problem is that modern Catholicism tries to combine two divergent paradigms. The deposit of faith represents the traditional paradigm. That\u2019s fixed. Complete. But modern Catholicism has added the theory of development. That leads to special pleading, where theological innovations are reclassified as theological developments. [p. 71]<\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s not a \u201cbasic problem\u201d for us at all. It is in Hays\u2019 deficient understanding of what development is<\/em> in the first place<\/a>. Development is completely consistent with one tradition progressively unfolding and being better understood over time. Development of doctrine is not<\/em> evolution of doctrine. It\u2019s not \u201camoeba to dinosaur\u201d (fundamental change); it\u2019s \u201cacorn to oak\u201d (essential continuity \u2014 with growth \u2014 of the same thing).<\/p>\n It\u2019s demonstrably false that throughout the NT, Peter is the central authority, the primary teacher on whom all others depend for final rulings in church governance. For the first few chapters in Acts, Peter takes the lead. After that, others like Stephen and Philip step in. Then Peter is eclipsed by Paul, because Paul is more talented than Peter.<\/span><\/p>\n The NT has two letters attributed to Peter. In mainstream Catholic scholarship, sanctioned by the Magisterium, Petrine authorship is denied. Most of the NT was composed by writers other than Peter. The Book of Acts contains some Petrine speeches, but mainstream Catholic scholarship regards the speeches in Acts as fictional. My point is not to agree with that but to respond to modern Catholicism on its own terms. And even if we take a more conservative position, the dominant and predominant NT teaching is from teachers other than Peter. [p. 72]<\/span><\/p>\n This is the good old \u201cpitting Paul against Peter\u201d failed Protestant attempt. I\u2019ve addressed it many times:<\/p>\n 50 New Testament Proofs for Petrine Primacy & the Papacy\u00a0<\/a>[1994]<\/p>\n Primacy of St. Peter Verified by Protestant Scholars<\/a>\u00a0[1994]<\/p>\n Reply to Critique of \u201c50 NT Proofs for the Papacy\u201d<\/a>\u00a0(vs. Jason Engwer) [3-14-02]<\/p>\n Refutation of a Satirical \u201cPauline Papacy\u201d Argument<\/a>\u00a0(vs. Jason Engwer) [9-30-03]<\/p>\n Papal Passages Lk 22:31-34 & Jn 21:15-17<\/a>\u00a0(vs. Jason Engwer)\u00a0[5-12-20]<\/p>\n Did Peter or James Preside at the Jerusalem Council? (And Was it the Prototype of Ecumenical Councils or Merely a Local Synod?)<\/a>\u00a0[5-21-21]<\/p>\n Pope St. Clement of Rome & Papal Authority<\/a>\u00a0[7-28-21]<\/p>\n Reply to Lucas Banzoli\u2019s 205 Potshots at St. Peter, Part I<\/a> (+ Pt. 2.<\/a> \/ Pt. 3<\/a> \/ Pt. 4<\/a>) [5-26-22]<\/p>\n No Papacy in the NT? Think Again (vs. Jason Engwer). With Special Emphasis on the Protestant Exegesis of \u201cThe keys of the kingdom of heaven\u201d (Matthew 16:19)<\/a>\u00a0[8-1-22]<\/p>\n Defending 20 Biblical Proofs for the Papacy (vs. Lucas Banzoli)<\/a>\u00a0[+\u00a0Part II<\/a>]\u00a0[2-13-23]<\/p>\n Reply to Rodrigo Silva on NT Evidences for the Papacy<\/a>\u00a0[2-27-23]<\/p>\n Did You Know That St. Peter is Mentioned More Than St. Paul in the New Testament? I Didn\u2019t Till Today<\/a>\u00a0[Facebook, 2-27-23]<\/p>\n Reply to Steve Hays\u2019 Caricatures of the Papacy<\/a>\u00a0[2-28-23]<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2023\/05\/WhoreOfBabylon2.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n\n