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 3: Competing Paradigms<\/strong>]<\/span><\/p>\n Finding the church<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n Catholic converts and apologists like Bryan Cross harp on \u201cthe visible church\u201d. Where do you find the visible church? [p. 94]<\/span><\/p>\n In the Bible:<\/p>\n Visible, Hierarchical, Apostolic Church<\/a>\u00a0[1996]<\/p>\n 1 Timothy 3:15:\u00a0Sola Scriptura<\/em>\u00a0or Visible Church Authority?<\/a>\u00a0[10-2-07]<\/p>\n Debunking the Mythical Invisible Church<\/a>\u00a0[9-14-15]<\/p>\n Is the One True Church a Visible or Invisible Entity?<\/a>\u00a0[National Catholic Register<\/em>, 9-12-18]<\/p>\n Protestants don\u2019t have a visible church. [p. 94]<\/span><\/p>\n Then that is one of many ways in which they are unbiblical. But it\u2019s incorrect for Hays to make such a blanket statement about all<\/em> Protestants. Anglicans believe in a visible Church. Even Hays\u2019 master John Calvin casually assumed that it existed:<\/p>\n How we are to judge the church visible<\/em>, which falls within our knowledge, is, I believe, already evident from the above discussion. For we have said that Holy Scripture speaks of the church in two ways. Sometimes by the term \u201cchurch\u201d it means that which is actually in God\u2019s presence, into which no persons are received but those who are children of God by grace of adoption and true members of Christ by sanctification of the Holy Spirit. Then, indeed, the church includes not only the saints presently living on earth, but all the elect from the beginning of the world. Often, however, the name \u201cchurch\u201d designates the whole multitude of men spread over the earth who profess to worship one God and Christ. By baptism we are initiated into faith in him; by partaking in the Lord\u2019s Supper we attest our unity in true doctrine and love; in the Word of the Lord we have agreement, and for the preaching of the Word the ministry instituted by Christ is preserved. In this church are mingled many hypocrites who have nothing of Christ but the name and outward appearance<\/em>. There are very many ambitious, greedy, envious persons, evil speakers, and some of quite unclean life. (Institutes of the Christian Religion<\/em> [Philadelphia, 1960], Book IV, Chapter 1, Section 7: \u201cInvisible and Visible Church\u201d<\/a>; italics my own)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Here\u2019s another definition of the church:<\/span><\/p>\n They devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles, to fellowship, to the breaking of bread, and prayer<\/em> (Acts 2:42).<\/span><\/p>\n That\u2019s a nifty compact definition. A functional definition. . . . <\/span><\/p>\n This is where you find \u201cthe church\u201d. You find the church whenever and whenever you find groups of Christians who exemplify Acts 2:42, both inside and outside of church.\u00a0<\/span>[p. 94]<\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s not a definition of the Church at all<\/em>. Rather, it\u2019s a description of how one group of the earliest Christians (Acts 11:26) \u2014 in Jerusalem \u2014 acted<\/em>. If I say, \u201cthese athletes warmed up by throwing the ball around, kept in physical shape, sat on the bench, ran around the bases, hit a pitched ball with a bat, and caught balls in the air,\u201d that\u2019s a description of baseball players: not the definition of baseball itself.<\/p>\n If Hays wants to argue in this fashion, I could just as well cite the actions of Christians in the seven churches of Revelation, too: \u201cyou have abandoned the love you had at first\u201d (Rev 2:4; of the church in Ephesus); \u201cyou are dead\u201d (Rev 3:1; of the church in Sardis); \u201cyou are lukewarm, . . . wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked\u201d (Rev 3:16-17; of the church in Laodicea).<\/p>\n Or how about the Galatian Christians, whom Paul calls his \u201cbrethren\u201d in \u201cthe churches of Galatia\u201d (Gal 1:2)? He also said that they were \u201cquickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel\u201d (Gal 1:6), and \u201cAre you so foolish? Having begun with the Spirit, are you now ending with the flesh?\u201d (3:3), and \u201cnow 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?\u201d (4:9), and \u201cI am afraid I have labored over you in vain\u201d (4:11).<\/p>\n All of these people from four local churches are regarded in Scripture (and by Paul) as Christians and brothers and sisters in Christ, yet this is how they<\/em> acted. Even Paul described himself<\/em> \u2014 \u201cthe foremost of sinners\u201d (1 Tim 1:15) \u2014 as follows:<\/p>\n Romans 7:15, 19, 23-24<\/strong> I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. . . . [19] For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do. . . . [23] but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin which dwells in my members. [24] Wretched man that I am! . . .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Therefore, it follows that we can\u2019t define the church by how believers act, because it\u2019s unbiblical<\/em>. If we wanted to reason like Steve, it would follow that it\u2019s just as biblical to define a Christian as \u201cdead\u201d or \u201clukewarm\u201d or \u201cwretched\u201d or one who is \u201cturning to a different gospel\u201d than it is to describe them as Luke did in Acts 2:42. And that\u2019s because the Church, which is visible, according to Holy Scripture, has wheat and weeds (or tares), as Jesus taught (Mt 13:24-30).<\/p>\n Does \u201cbreaking of bread\u201d (cf. v46-47) allude to the eucharist or ordinary communal Christian meals? False dichotomy inasmuch as that formal distinction didn\u2019t exist at the time. The eucharist was incorporated into common meals (cf. 1 Cor 10-11). [p. 94]<\/span><\/p>\n Many classic Protestant commentators, contrary to Hays, think it is referring to the Eucharist here (and it is the most prevalent historical view):<\/p>\n Ellicott\u2019s Commentary for English Readers<\/em><\/a>: And in breaking of bread, and in prayers.<\/span>\u2014(3) St. Luke uses the phrase, we must remember, in the sense which, when he wrote, it had acquired in St. Paul\u2019s hands. It can have no meaning less solemn than the commemorative \u201cbreaking of bread,\u201d of\u00a01 Corinthians 10:16. From the very first what was afterwards known as the Lord\u2019s Supper (see Note on\u00a01 Corinthians 11:20) took its place with baptism as a permanent universal element in the Church\u2019s life. At first, it would seem, the evening meal of every day was such a supper. Afterwards the two elements that had then been united were developed separately, the social into the\u00a0Agap\u0153,\u00a0<\/span>or Feasts of Love (Jude 1:12, and\u2014though here there is a various-reading\u20142 Peter 2:13), the other into the Communion, or Eucharistic Sacrifice.<\/p>\n Gill\u2019s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/em><\/a>: and in breaking of bread; or \u201cof the eucharist\u201d: as the Syriac version renders it, which was [the] usual name with the ancients for the Lord\u2019s supper; and which seems to be intended here, and not eating common bread, or a common meal; seeing it is here mentioned with religious exercises: and though the Jews used to begin their meals with breaking of bread, yet the whole repast, or meal, is never by them called by that name . . .<\/p>\n Expositor\u2019s Greek Testament<\/a><\/em>: no interpretation is satisfactory which forgets . . . that the author of Acts had behind him Pauline language and doctrine, and that we are justified in adducing the language of St. Paul in order to explain the words before us, cf.<\/span>\u00a01 Corinthians 10:16;\u00a01 Corinthians 11:24,\u00a0Acts 20:7 . . . But if we admit this, we cannot consistently explain the expression of a mere common meal. It may be true that every such meal in the early days of the Church\u2019s first love had a religious significance, that it became a type and evidence of the kingdom of God amongst the believers, but St. Paul\u2019s habitual reference of the words before us to the Lord\u2019s Supper leads us to see in them here a reference to the commemoration of the Lord\u2019s death, although we may admit that it is altogether indisputable that this commemoration at first followed a common meal.<\/p>\n Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/em><\/a>: The earliest title of the Holy Communion and that by which it is mostly spoken of in Scripture. (See\u00a0Acts 20:7;\u00a01 Corinthians 10:16, &c.)<\/p>\n Pulpit Commentary<\/a><\/em>: in the Holy Eucharist (see\u00a0Matthew 26:26;\u00a0Mark 14:22;\u00a0Luke 22:19;\u00a0Luke 24:30;\u00a01 Corinthians 11:24;\u00a01 Corinthians 10:16;\u00a0Acts 20:7).<\/p>\n Vincent\u2019s Word Studies<\/a><\/em>: Used by Luke only, and only in the phrase breaking of bread. The kindred verb \u03ba\u03bb\u03b1\u0301\u03b6\u03c9 or \u03ba\u03bb\u03b1\u0301\u03c9, to break, occurs often, but, like the noun, only of breaking bread. Hence used to designate the celebration of the Lord\u2019s Supper.<\/p>\n Alford\u2019s<\/a> Greek Testament Critical Exegetical Commentary<\/a><\/em>: The interpretation of \u1f21 \u03ba\u03bb. \u03c4. \u1f04\u03c1\u03c4. [here] as\u00a0the celebration of the Lord\u2019s Supper<\/span>\u00a0has been, both in ancient and modern times, the prevalent one. Chrysostom himself, in his 27th Hom. on 1 Cor., p. 422, interprets it, or at all events \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u1fb3 and it together, of the Holy Communion.<\/p>\n Calvin\u2019s Commentaries<\/em><\/a>: my reason why I would rather have breaking of bread to be understood of the Lord\u2019s Supper in this place is this, because Luke doth reckon up those things wherein the public estate of the Church is contained. Yea, he expresseth in this place four marks whereby the true and natural face of the Church may be judged.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Rome\u2019s house of cards<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n Catholicism, since about the time of Pius XII, has been undergoing drastic change\u2013a trend accelerated by Pope Francis. So it\u2019s unclear, after the <\/span>dust settles, what Catholicism still represents. I pity someone attempting to write an introduction to the Catholic faith under the pontificate of Francis. That may be out of date before the ink is dry. Catholics must consult the daily newspaper to know what they\u2019re still supposed to believe. [p. 95]<\/span><\/p>\n In fact, there have been no changes in doctrine or dogma at all<\/em>. There are a good number of confused and undereducated Catholics flapping their mouths about supposed change in the Church or with Pope Francis, but they are wrong, and they can\u2019t document that anything has actually changed. A Catholic doesn\u2019t find the doctrines and beliefs of his or her Church by reading newspapers. They find it, rather, in the Catechism, the ecumenical councils, papal encyclicals and other utterances, and Denzinger\u2019s Enchiridion<\/em><\/a> (see the latest 2012 edition<\/a>): the standard reference source for what the Catholic Church believes.<\/p>\n If someone thinks that some Catholic doctrine has changed, they are welcome to try to prove it by consulting these sources. I can save them the trouble. As a credentialed full-time Catholic apologist for 21 years (with several Imprimaturs, etc.), I can attest that no doctrine has changed or been thrown out. If someone thinks otherwise, they need to prove it \u201cfrom the books\u201d; not merely assert it with no proof at all (as Hays habitually does). He\u2019s firing blanks. Much ado about nothing. If he actually could \u201cproduce the goods\u201d and nail down his case, then he certainly would<\/em> have. The fact that he doesn\u2019t<\/em> even attempt<\/em> to do so is a roundabout concession that he has nothing and so can only indulge in empty rhetoric.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Practical Matters<\/em><\/strong>: Perhaps some of my 4,200+ free online articles (the most comprehensive \u201cone-stop\u201d Catholic apologetics site) or\u00a0fifty-one books<\/a>\u00a0have helped you (by God\u2019s grace) to decide to\u00a0become Catholic<\/a>\u00a0or to\u00a0return to the Church<\/a>,\u00a0or better understand some doctrines and\u00a0why<\/em>\u00a0we believe them<\/a>.<\/p>\n Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I\u2019m always in need of more funds: especially\u00a0monthly<\/em>\u00a0support. \u201cThe laborer is worthy of his wages\u201d (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a\u00a0full-time Catholic apologist<\/a>,\u00a0and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.<\/p>\n PayPal donations<\/a>\u00a0are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You\u2019ll see the term \u201cCatholic Used Book Service\u201d, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page:\u00a0About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong \/ Donation Information<\/a>.\u00a0Thanks a million<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0from the bottom of my heart!<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n ***<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2023\/05\/WhoreOfBabylon2.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n\n