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, 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.\u00a0<\/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 Where was your church before the Reformation?<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n Where do we find the Roman Catholic church in the Gospels? Where do we find \u201cthe church\u201d in the Gospel of Mark? Mark\u2019s Gospel never mentions \u201cthe church\u201d. Where do we find \u201cthe church\u201d in the Gospel of Luke? Luke\u2019s Gospel never mentions \u201cthe church\u201d. Where do we find \u201cthe church\u201d in the Gospel of John? John\u2019s Gospel never mentions \u201cthe church\u201d. The only Gospel that even mentions \u201cthe church\u201d is Matthew\u2019s Gospel. And it mentions \u201cthe church\u201d just two times. That\u2019s it! [p. 99]<\/span><\/p>\n Where do we find sola Scriptura<\/em> or denominationalism or \u201cfaith alone\u201d in the Gospels? Where do we find sola Scriptura<\/em> or denominationalism or \u201cfaith alone\u201d in the Gospel of Mark? Mark\u2019s Gospel never mentions them. Where do we find sola Scriptura<\/em> or denominationalism or \u201cfaith alone\u201d in the Gospel of Luke? Luke\u2019s Gospel never mentions them. Where do we find sola Scriptura<\/em> or denominationalism or \u201cfaith alone\u201d in the Gospel of John? John\u2019s Gospel never mentions them. I did this parody to highlight the fact that if we want to argue \u201cbiblical absence,\u201d Protestantism can offer plenty of that, and it\u2019s rarely addressed within its ranks.<\/span><\/p>\n Now let\u2019s address whether \u201cchurch\u201d is almost entirely absent in the Gospels. I deny this and assert that it is indeed present in the phrase \u201ckingdom of God [or heaven]\u201d. McClintock and Strong Biblical Cyclopedia<\/em><\/span> (\u201cKingdom of God\u201d<\/a>) stated:<\/p>\n As external, it is either embodied in the visible Church of Christ, and in so far is present and progressive (Mt 6:10<\/a>;\u00a0Mt 12:28<\/a>;\u00a0Mt 13:24<\/a>,31<\/a>,33<\/a>,41<\/a>,47<\/a>;\u00a0Mt 16:19<\/a>,28<\/a>;\u00a0Mr 4:30<\/a>;\u00a0Mr 11:10<\/a>;\u00a0Lu 13:18<\/a>,20<\/a>;\u00a0Ac 19:8<\/a>;\u00a0Heb 12:28<\/a>), or it is to be perfected in the coming of the Messiah to judgment and his subsequent spiritual reign in bliss and glory, in which view it is future (Mt 13:43<\/a>;\u00a0Mt 26:29<\/a>;\u00a0Mr 14:25<\/a>;\u00a0Lu 22:29-30<\/a>;\u00a02Pe 1:11<\/a>;\u00a0Re 12:10<\/a>). . . . But these different aspects are not always distinguished, the expression often embracing both the internal and external sense, and referring both to its commencement in this world and its completion in the world to come (Mt 5:3<\/a>,10<\/a>,20<\/a>;\u00a0Mt 7:21<\/a>;\u00a0Mt 11:11<\/a>;\u00a0Mt 13:11<\/a>,52<\/a>;\u00a0Mt 18:3-4<\/a>;\u00a0Col 1:13<\/a>;\u00a01Th 2:12<\/a>).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n \u201cKingdom of heaven\u201d in RSV appears 32 times<\/a> in the Gospel of Matthew. \u201cKingdom of God\u201d<\/a> appears four times in Matthew, fourteen times in Mark, 32 times in Luke, and twice in John. So if we add all these together and add the two uses of \u201cchurch\u201d in Matthew, we have 86 appearances altogether. Taking away the ones that refer to Christ\u2019s kingdom after the Second Coming, there are still quite a bit. Hays\u2019 attempt to argue for a non-Church framework in the Gospels abysmally fails.<\/p>\n In fairness, a concept can be present where the word is absent. In the Gospels there\u2019s a notion of Christian community. But you can\u2019t find the Roman Catholic church anywhere in the Gospels. [p. 99]<\/span><\/p>\n Matthew 16:17-19<\/strong> And Jesus answered him, \u201cBlessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. [18] And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. [19] I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This is a \u201cChurch\u201d built upon St. Peter as its first leader. Does that sound familiar as any particular Christian communion?<\/p>\n All four Gospels have accounts of the Last Supper, but there\u2019s nothing about a priest officiating at the Eucharist. [p. 99]<\/span><\/p>\n Jesus presided over it, and He is the new high priest (Heb 2:17; 3:1; 4:14-15; 5:5, 10; 6:20; 7:26; 8:1, 3; 9:11) and prototype of Catholic priests.<\/p>\n And only one Gospel has a clear reference to Christian baptism. [p. 99]<\/span><\/p>\n Hays no doubt refers to Matthew 28:19: \u201cGo therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit\u201d. He neglects Mark 16:16: \u201cHe who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.\u201d If he wants to play the game that 16:9-20 is a late addition, read one of many defenses<\/a> of these verses as Scripture, and a second excellent one<\/a>. Hays also overlooks John 3:22: \u201cAfter this Jesus and his disciples went into the land of Judea; there he remained with them and baptized.\u201d And John 4:1-2: \u201c. . . Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John [2] (although Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples),\u201d.<\/p>\n Why couldn\u2019t he look these things up<\/em>? As it is, he now just looks foolish and silly. Nothing is easier than searching the Bible, with today\u2019s marvelous searching technology.<\/p>\n Where are the seven sacraments in the Gospels? Nowhere. [p. 99]<\/span><\/p>\n First of all, there is no rule (certainly not in the Bible or the Gospels) that everything in Christianity must be present in the Gospels in the first pace. They are only part of the New Testament. But there is plenty of sacramental indication in the Gospels. We just saw the evidence for baptism<\/strong>. The Eucharist<\/strong> is explicitly laid out in the Last Supper accounts and in John 6, where Jesus dramatically states: \u201cunless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life\u201d (6:53-54), \u201cHe who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him\u201d (6:56), \u201che who eats this bread will live for ever\u201d (6:58).<\/p>\n Absolution (reconciliation \/ confession)<\/strong> is found in John 20:23: \u201cIf you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained\u201d (cf. Mt 16:19; 18:18). The sacrament of marriage<\/strong> is arguably found in Jesus saying: \u00a0\u201cHave you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, `For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh\u2019? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.\u201d (Mt 19:4-6).<\/p>\n Ordination<\/strong> is present in \u201c\u201dHe who receives you receives me\u201d (Mt 10:40), \u201d As the Father has sent me, even so I send you\u201d (Jn 20:21) and other similar passages. Extreme Unction \/ last rites \/ anointing <\/strong>is implied in all the many healing passages, especially those where death is imminent or has already occurred. Confirmation<\/strong> is found in \u201cReceive the Holy Spirit\u201d (Jn 20:22) and \u201cthe Counselor . . . whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth\u201d (Jn 15:26), and \u201cWhen the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth\u201d (Jn 16:13).<\/p>\n Where\u2019s the cult of the saints in the Gospels? Nowhere. [p. 99]<\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s implied in Jesus teaching about how the rich man prayed to Abraham in Hades (Luke 16), in Jesus talking to the dead and praying for them\u00a0 when He raised people from the dead, in Moses and Elijah appearing with Jesus and talking to Him during His transfiguration, and in the dead coming out of their tombs and walking around Jerusalem after the crucifixion (Mt 27). Protestant theology is vague in terms of incorporating these extraordinary events\u00a0 into an overall consistent framework. Often, Protestants will simply ignore it as if it doesn\u2019t exist, just as Hays did here!<\/p>\n Where\u2019s the Roman Catholic priesthood in the Gospels? Nowhere. [p. 99]<\/span><\/p>\n In Jesus\u2019 commission to His disciples (in addition to granting them the power of absolution, as I already addressed above):<\/p>\n Matthew 10:1, 7-8<\/strong> And he called to him his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every infirmity. . . . [7] And preach as you go, saying, \u2018The kingdom of heaven is at hand.\u2019 [8] Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons. You received without paying, give without pay.<\/p>\n Matthew 28:19-20<\/strong> Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, [20] teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; . . .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Who, for example, casts out demons today? For the most part, it\u2019s Catholic priests performing exorcisms.<\/p>\n Where\u2019s the papacy in the Gospels? Nowhere. [p. 99]<\/span><\/p>\n Nonsense. It\u2019s clearly in the portrayed leadership of Peter among the disciples (Petrine primacy), and in Jesus building His Church upon him (I already cited above). Here is much more:<\/p>\n Matthew 16:19b<\/strong>\u00a0. . . whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n \u201cBinding\u201d and \u201cloosing\u201d were rabbinical terms, meaning to \u201cforbid\u201d and \u201cpermit\u201d with reference to the interpretation of the law, and secondarily to \u201ccondemn\u201d or \u201cacquit.\u201d Thus, St. Peter was given the authority to determine the rules for doctrine and practice. Bishops also these powers (Mt 18:17-18; Jn 20:23), but Peter was the only apostle who received them singularly,\u00a0by name<\/em> (making him preeminent). Peter was regarded by Jesus as the chief shepherd after Himself (Jn 10:11; 21:15-17): over the universal Church. Jesus told him to \u201cfeed my lambs\u201d and \u201ctend my sheep\u201d and \u201cfeed my sheep.\u201d<\/p>\n Jesus uniquely prayed for Peter, that his \u201cfaith may not fail\u201d, and exhorted him to \u201cstrengthen\u201d his \u201cbrethren\u201d (Lk 22:32), and\u00a0 informed him that he had received divine knowledge by a special revelation (Mt 16:17). Jesus uniquely associated Himself and Peter in the miracle of the tribute-money (Mt 17:24-27), and taught from Peter\u2019s boat. A\u00a0 miraculous catch of fish followed (Lk 5:1-11).<\/p>\n Peter\u2019s name occurs first in all lists of apostles (Mt 10:2; Mk 3:16; Lk 6:14). Matthew even called him the \u201cfirst\u201d (10:2). He is almost without exception named first whenever he appears with anyone else. He alone among the apostles received a new name, Rock<\/em> (Jn 1:42; Mt 16:18).\u00a0The two disciples on the road to Emmaus (Lk 24:34) distinguished the Lord\u2019s post-Resurrection appearances to Peter from those to other apostles.<\/p>\n Peter is often<\/em> spoken of as distinct among apostles (Mk 1:36; Lk 9:28, 32), and his name is always the first listed of the \u201cinner circle\u201d of the disciples (Peter, James and John \u2013 Mt 17:1; 26:37, 40; Mk 5:37; 14:37).\u00a0He\u2019s mentioned more often than all the other disciples put together: 191 times (162 as Peter or Simon Peter, 23 as Simon, and 6 as Cephas). John is next (48). In the entire NT, his name is mentioned even more than Paul\u2019s.<\/p>\n Peter first confessed Christ\u2019s divinity (Mt 16:16), first set out for, and entered the empty tomb (Lk 24:12; Jn 20:6), and led the apostles in fishing (Jn 21:2-3, 11). He was often the central figure in dramatic gospel scenes such as Jesus\u2019 walking on the water (Mt 14:28-32; Lk 5:1 ff., Mk 10:28; Mt 17:24 ff.).\u00a0He alone cast himself into the sea to come to Jesus (Jn 21:7). He was often the spokesman for the apostles (Mk 8:29; Mt 18:21; Lk 9:5; 12:41; Jn 6:67 ff.). There is much more in the entire NT<\/a>.<\/p>\n Where\u2019s the Immaculate Conception in the Gospels (or anywhere in the NT)? Nowhere. [p. 99]<\/span><\/p>\n The essence<\/em> of the Immaculate Conception (a sinless Mary) is found in Luke 1:28 and the word kecharitomene<\/em> (\u201cfull of grace\u201d), once scrutinized in depth, especially in light of what Paul teaches about grace, as I have written about<\/a>. There are also other biblical analogies<\/a> that can be brought to bear, including (in the Gospels), the similar sanctity of John the Baptist:<\/p>\n Luke 1:15\u00a0<\/b>for he will be great before the Lord, and he shall drink no wine nor strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother\u2019s womb.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Where\u2019s the Assumption of Mary in the NT? Nowhere. [p. 99]<\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s implied in many biblical analogies of persons going to heaven<\/a> in an extraordinary way, in Revelation 12<\/a>, and it follows deductively from her Immaculate Conception.\u00a0Bodily death and decay are the result of sin and the fall of man (Genesis 3:16-19; Psalm 16:10). An absence of actual and original sin would allow for instant bodily resurrection. It\u2019s as if Mary goes back to before the fall (for this reason the Church fathers call her the \u201cNew Eve\u201d).\u00a0Jesus\u2019 resurrection makes possible universal resurrection and redemption of our bodies as well as souls (1 Corinthians 15:13-16). Mary\u2019s assumption is the \u201cfirst fruits,\u201d sign, and type of the general resurrection of all (created) mankind; she exemplifies the age in which death and sin are conquered once and for all.<\/p>\n Now, a Catholic apologist might object that it\u2019s anachronistic to expect a blueprint of the church in the Gospels. But is that an unreasonable expectation? [p. 100]<\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s unreasonable to find a fully developed<\/em> \u201cblueprint\u201d but all the essentials are there, as I have just shown. Hays kept claiming that all of this was \u201cnowhere\u201d<\/span> in the Gospels and NT. He was dead wrong.<\/p>\n Catholic apologists tell us that the Roman Catholic church was directly founded by Jesus Christ. [p. 100]<\/span><\/p>\n Yes, because it\u2019s laid out clear as day in Matthew 16.<\/p>\n Catholic apologists tell us that Jesus instituted the seven sacraments. So it\u2019s a reasonable expectation that when we compare the Roman Catholic church to the Gospels, we find something in the Gospels recognizably corresponding to the Roman Catholic church. [p. 100]<\/span><\/p>\n Yes it is, which is why I took the time to answer these questions. If Steve Hays were alive he would then have the responsibility to counter my answers. But he wouldn\u2019t have done so. Nor will anti-Catholics today do so (they almost certainly will not). That\u2019s fine with me. If the Catholic apologetic from Scripture goes out unopposed from my blog (over 4,200 articles), and my 51 books<\/a>, then that\u2019s terrific. People will receive undiluted, undistorted theological and spiritual truth. I keep producing Scripture, and the leading anti-Catholics (all of whom used to respond at least cursorily to my arguments) deliberately ignore it (pretend that I don\u2019t exist). Let them. No skin off of my<\/em> back. I keep persuading people, by the grace of God, and if this happens with no opposition taking place, so be it!<\/p>\n A Catholic apologist might counter that Jesus indirectly founded the Roman Catholic church by establishing the initial conditions, then leaving the rest to theological development. Suppose we grant that for the sake of argument. If so, why can\u2019t we claim the Protestant Reformation as an intended theological development? [p. 100]<\/span><\/p>\n We can insofar as it continues apostolic, patristic, Catholic tradition. We cannot where it departs and introduces novelties not before taught by the universal Church (which it massively did; for example, Luther alone departed in at least fifty ways<\/a> by 1520, even before his excommunication).<\/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