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 4: Catholic Apologetics<\/strong>]<\/span><\/p>\n Catholicism of the mind<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n They don\u2019t convert to Catholicism based on evidence for Catholicism. Rather, they convert to Catholicism despite evidence to the contrary. [p. 166]<\/span><\/p>\n This is self-refuting. I just wanted my readers to see it.<\/p>\n As the world slept<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n This dovetails with the claim of Catholic apologists that Jesus founded a visible church (i.e. unified hierarchical organization). It has a visible head (the pope). But compare that to Christ\u2019s kingdom parable about the seed growing at night. In that respect, God\u2019s kingdom is invisible. It grows at night while the farmer sleeps. It grows at night while the world sleeps. . . . In that respect, the church represents a silent revolution. It grows and spreads under cover of darkness. [p. 167]<\/span><\/p>\n That doesn\u2019t describe the following passage about a visible Church:<\/p>\n Matthew 5:14-16<\/strong> You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hid. [15] Nor do men light a lamp and put it under a bushel, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. [16] Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven. (cf. Mk 4:21; Lk 11:33]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In the Synoptics, the church and the kingdom of God are closely related categories. [p. 167]<\/span><\/p>\n Here Hays confirms an earlier argument of mine, from Reply #12<\/a>. He had written,<\/p>\n 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><\/blockquote>\n My answer was that \u201ckingdom of God \/ heaven\u201d was massively found in the Gospels (84 times, in fact) and that it was basically a synonym for \u201cchurch.\u201d Thus, Hays contradicts himself. On page 99 of his book he can barely find \u201cthe church\u201d in the Gospels. Now on page 167, he can. We all live and learn, I reckon. At least he was half-right in his book.<\/p>\n Prooftexting apostolic succession<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n [Choosing Matthias to replace Judas was] maintaining the symbolism of the Twelve after Judas defected. . . . there can\u2019t be more or less than Twelve at a time. . . . The Twelve is a closed number. Judas was replaced to maintain the symbolism. By definition, you can\u2019t extrapolate from a closed number (the Twelve) to an indefinite number beyond twelve at a time. The Twelve constitute a self-contained unit. There can only be The twelve disciples are also called \u201capostles\u201d (Mt 10:2; Rev 21:14). There are more apostles than twelve (e.g., St. Paul). So much for this<\/em> argument. But there\u2019s more:<\/p>\n Luke 10:1<\/strong> the Lord appointed seventy others, and sent them on ahead of him, two by two, into every town and place where he himself was about to come.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The classic Protestant commentators<\/a> acknowledge these as further \u201cdisciples\u201d and they seem to be called \u201cdisciples\u201d in Luke 10:23 too. Benson Commentary<\/a><\/em> states that \u201cHe . . . sent out seventy of his disciples\u201d and \u201cIt is remarkable that our Lord assigns the same reason for the mission of the seventy which he had assigned for the mission of the twelve disciples.\u201d Ellicott\u2019s Commentary for English Readers<\/a> refers to \u201cthe seventy disciples.\u201d So does Matthew Henry<\/a>. and Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary<\/a><\/em>. Gill\u2019s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/a><\/em> states that \u201cbesides the twelve, whom he chose and called out, from among the multitude of the disciples, and ordained them apostles, he selected and ordained seventy others.\u201d Meyer\u2019s NT Commentary<\/a><\/em> adds:<\/p>\n That Jesus in general had around Him a larger circle of constant disciples, besides the Twelve, from whom He could appoint seventy for a special commission, is in itself, and from the evidence of such passages as\u00a0Acts 1:15<\/a>;\u00a0Acts 1:21<\/a>,\u00a01 Corinthians 15:6<\/a>, as well as\u00a0John 6:60<\/a>, not to be doubted.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n My argument, then, is that neither \u201cdisciples\u201d nor \u201capostles\u201d are confined<\/em> in the Bible to twelve people alone (though there is definitely a strong sense of \u201cthe [original] twelve\u201d<\/a>). Acts 6:1 states that \u201cthe disciples were increasing in number.\u201d Hays\u2019 argument that the original twelve always had to be twelve<\/em> falls flat as a result. We even see the seventy disciples doing the exact same sorts of evangelistic things that the original twelve did. Matthias is an example of true apostolic succession in the Bible. Since Protestants reject apostolic succession, Hays had to find some sort of way to discount that, and this desperate answer is what he came up with.<\/p>\n You then play a shell game by switching from that to apostles appointing elders, as if that flows out of the appointment of Mathias. But that\u2019s categorically different. [p. 168]<\/span><\/p>\n It is a different category, but this is sanctioned in the passage itself, since Luke cites Psalms 108:8 in Acts 1:20: \u201cHis office<\/em> let another take.\u201d The Greek for \u201coffice\u201d is episkop\u00e9<\/em>\u00a0(Strong\u2019s word #1984<\/a>): the word for \u201cbishop\u201d and the root of \u201cepiscopal.\u201d Thayer\u2019s Greek Concordance<\/em><\/a> writes about its use in this passage:<\/p>\n c.<\/span>\u00a0after the analogy of the Hebrew\u00a0\u05e4\u05b0\u05bc\u05e7\u05bb\u05d3\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4<\/span>\u00a0(Numbers 4:16<\/a>;\u00a01 Chronicles 24:19<\/a>\u00a0(here the\u00a0Sept.<\/span>\u00a0\u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c8\u03b9\u03c2<\/span>), etc.),\u00a0oversight<\/span>\u00a0i. e.\u00a0overseership, office, charge<\/span>;\u00a0Vulg. <\/span>episcopatus<\/span><\/em>:\u00a0Acts 1:20<\/a>, from\u00a0Psalm 108:8<\/a>; specifically, the office of a bishop (the overseer or presiding officer of a Christian church): 1 Timothy 3:1<\/a>, and in ecclesiastical writings<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In KJV, it\u2019s translated \u201cbishoprick\u201d at Acts 1:20 and \u201cbishop\u201d at 1 Timothy 3:1. This clinches the case for apostolic succession from the Bible itself, since Judas was in effect called a bishop<\/em> or elder<\/em>, and this is the office that Matthias would assume, and which would be perpetual throughout Church history. The cognate episkopos<\/em> (Strong\u2019s word #1985<\/a>) is defined by Strong<\/a> (with obvious Protestant bias \u2014 not wanting to say the word \u201cbishop\u201d), as \u201coverseer, supervisor, ruler, especially used with reference to the supervising function exercised by an elder or presbyter of a church or congregation.\u201d<\/p>\n That\u2019s still quite sufficient, however, to make the argument for apostolic succession. The word appears five times in the NT. KJV translates it as \u201cbishop(s)\u201d four out of five times, and \u201coverseer\u201d in the remaining appearance. If we consult English translations<\/a> for 1 Timothy 3:2, which has episkopos<\/em>, we see that bishops is used 26 times in one particular listing, while \u201coverseer\u201d also appears 26 times, \u201cleader\u201d eight times, and \u201celder\u201d twice.\u00a0 No problem for the Catholic and larger \u201cepiscopal Church government\u201d view. \u201cOverseer\u201d and \u201cleader\u201d are synonyms for \u201cbishop\u201d anyway.<\/p>\n Moreover, Acts 1:25 states that Matthias would \u201ctake the place in this ministry<\/em> . . . from which Judas turned aside.\u201d The word there is diakonia<\/em> (Strong\u2019s word #1248<\/a>): from which deacon<\/em> derives (Acts 1:17 applies the same word to Judas, too). It\u2019s usually translated \u201cministry\u201d in English translations, and the same word is applied to Christian work of non-apostles (e.g., Acts 6:4; 1 Cor 12:5: \u201cvarieties of service\u201d; 1 Cor 16:15: \u201cthe household of Stephanas . . . have devoted themselves to the service of the saints\u201d).<\/p>\n No transfer of office. To the contrary, the Twelve is, in the nature of the case, a self-enclosed numerical unit. You can\u2019t legitimately expand from that to more than twelve at a\u00a0time. [p. 168]<\/span><\/p>\n As I already proved, the Bible and Jesus \u2014 contrary to Pope Steve Hays III \u2014 did indeed do that (both \u201cdisciple\u201d and \u201capostle\u201d are applied to many more people than the original \u201ctwelve\u201d). Hence, in John 6, when Jesus teaches Real Presence in the Eucharist, the \u201cproto-Protestants\u201d who had followed Him couldn\u2019t handle that and left Him (\u201cAfter this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him\u201d \u2014 John 6:66: an appropriate number for such apostasy!). This is immediately opposed to the twelve, since the next verse states, \u201cJesus said to the twelve, \u2018Do you also wish to go away?\u2019 \u201d Again, none of this refutes the biblical reasoning for apostolic succession. It\u2019s just grasping at straws.<\/p>\n The fact that each of the Twelve might be classified as an apostle doesn\u2019t imply that all apostles are disciples in the exclusive sense of the Twelve. [p. 169]<\/span><\/p>\n We agree, but it still doesn\u2019t rebut our argument for apostolic succession, which I made above, and which Hays (as so often) seems blissfully unaware of.<\/p>\n But Catholics don\u2019t think there\u2019s a permanent apostolic office with successive incumbents. They don\u2019t think apostolic succession means one apostle succeeding another apostle. Rather, they think bishops in union with the pope are the true successors to the Apostolate. . . . apostolic succession involves a shift from apostles to bishops. Different principle. Replacing one apostle with another apostle isn\u2019t any kind of precedent for replacing an apostle with a bishop. [p. 170]<\/span><\/p>\n Precisely as I showed through biblical Greek words (transfer from apostles to bishops and deacons and elders . . . There was only one Apostle Paul, too, yet he appears to pass on his office in some sense to Timothy:<\/p>\n 2 Timothy 1:6, 11, 13-14<\/strong> Hence I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands; . . . [11] For this gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher, . . . [13] Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; [14] guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.<\/p>\n 2 Timothy 2:2<\/strong> and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.<\/p>\n 2 Timothy 4:1-2<\/strong>\u00a0I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom:\u00a0[2] preach the word, be urgent in season and out of season, convince, rebuke, and exhort, be unfailing in patience and in teaching.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Hays was obviously unfamiliar with the entire classical argument from Matthias for apostolic succession. He never delved into the relevant Greek words. I did. My argument was thoroughly, deeply biblical; his was only biblical in a superficial, \u201csurfacey\u201d sense and a mere knee-jerk false tradition of men. We see this again and again in anti-Catholic polemics. They pick-and-choose. We go deep and incorporate all relevant cross-references. I have many more articles on this topic (with additional arguments):<\/p>\n A difference, to be a difference, must make a difference<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n Catholicism takes the position that in addition to Biblical revelation, I\u2019m duty-bound to believe Catholic dogmas. It is sinful to disbelieve them. [p. 171]<\/span><\/p>\n Is this unique to Catholicism? Nope. We also see it in the infamous Calvinist Synod of Dort<\/a> in the Netherlands in 1618\u20131619, which required all Calvinists to believe in the five tents known by the acronym TULIP<\/a>. The thirteen Arminian ministers (the \u201cRemonstrants\u201d) refused, and were ordered to stop preaching, which they also refused to do. On July 5, 1619 they were sentenced as \u201cdisturbers of the public peace\u201d and ordered to leave the country. Wikipedia describes what then occurred:<\/p>\n There followed the\u00a0political condemnation<\/a>\u00a0of the statesman\u00a0Johan van Oldenbarnevelt<\/a>\u00a0who had been the protector of the Remonstrants. For the crime of\u00a0general perturbation in the state of the nation, both in Church and State<\/i>\u00a0(treason), he was beheaded on 13 May 1619, only four days after the final meeting of the Synod. As consequence of the Arminian defeat, the jurist\u00a0Hugo Grotius<\/a>\u00a0was given a life sentence in prison; but he escaped with the help of his wife. Both Van Oldenbarnevelt and Grotius had in fact been imprisoned since 29 August 1618.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n These Dutch Calvinists played the game that they learned from the Lutherans, Calvin, and the Anglicans: simply redefine religious differences as treason<\/em> and kill anyone who proclaims them. Only Catholics<\/em> believe(d) in dogmas, and only they<\/em> persecuted outsiders? Think again. Protestantism has a massive history of persecution and intolerance<\/a>. Lutherans and Calvinists alike murdered the Anabaptists, folks who \u2014 like Steve Hays \u2014 believed in adult \u201cbeliever\u2019s\u201d baptism. In that utterly intolerant Protestant world with the beloved State-Churches, Hays and his comrade, fellow Reformed Baptist James White could very well have been executed (usually by drowning, in mockery of adult baptism). I, on the other hand, as a Catholic, would merely be exiled.<\/p>\n Indeed, it may be a mortal sin. [p. 171]<\/span><\/p>\n Well, I guess old poor Johan van Oldenbarnevelt<\/a> must have committed a mortal sin, then, since he lost his head over the crime of not believing in doctrinaire Calvinism. Many hundreds of Catholics were murdered in England under Butcher Henry VIII (430 martyrs<\/a>) and Evil Queen Bess (312 victims<\/a>) \u2014 often by being hanged, drawn, and quartered: disemboweled, hearts cut out, etc. \u2013, for the \u201ctreasonous\u201d view of not accepting the saintly inveterate adulterer and murderer Henry VIII \u2014 instead of wicked, evil popes \u2014 as the Supreme Head of the Christian Church.<\/p>\n The church of Rome is like Neurath\u2019s ship, which undergoes constant remodeling after it leaves dry dock. You can no longer say what Catholicism is or means because that\u2019s subject to some unforeseeable future revision or reinterpretation. What is ever truly definitive? <\/span>What is ever truly authoritative? [p. 174]<\/span><\/p>\n As I\u2019ve reiterated again and again, Catholics know exactly<\/em> what we believe. We\u2019re far more precise and definite than any Protestant denomination. Hays never takes one Catholic doctrine and proves beyond doubt (from our sources) that it has fundamentally changed. It\u2019s all empty rhetoric and baseless hyper-polemics. On the one hand we are blasted and derided because we believe in dogmas that must be adhered to. Then Hays, without missing a beat, will turn around and claim that no one knows what Catholics believe (\u201cWhat is ever truly definitive?\u201d<\/span>), or will have to believe in the future. Which is<\/em> it? He couldn\u2019t comprehend development of doctrine to save his life. And because of that gross deficiency in his understanding, he was doomed to never grasp the nature of historical theology and its consistent progression over time.<\/p>\n Hays does vainly attempt, however (pp. 174-175), to assert that \u201cno salvation outside the Church\u201d has changed and that the Church supposedly taught in the past that every non-Catholic was inevitably, irrevocably damned to hell. I\u2019ve already addressed that, and so need not do it again.<\/p>\n What\u2019s the official ecclesiology in Vatican II? Is it the more collegial, conciliarist model that the majority of bishops voted for, or is it the more <\/span>ultamontane model in the \u201cexplanatory note\u201d of Paul VI? [p. 175]<\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s the same as it has always<\/em> been: the pope as supreme head; bishops in council must ultimately agree with the pope. Unlike Hays\u2019 usual modus operandi<\/em>, I will actually cite<\/em> the council. The\u00a0Dogmatic Constitution on the Church<\/em>\u00a0(Lumen Gentium<\/em><\/a>) taught that \u201cThis teaching concerning the institution, the permanence, the nature and import of the sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and his infallible teaching office, the sacred synod proposes anew to be firmly believed by all the faithful\u201d (18). Next question? It also strengthened the concept of conciliar infallibility more than ever, but not with any implication that they could oppose the pope (the error of conciliarism).<\/p>\n Paul VI was clearly alarmed by what the bishops promulgated, so he overruled it with his explanatory note. Yet these two competing models of ecclesiology bump up against each other in the final edition. Both were codified at the same council. . . . wouldn\u2019t we expect a divine teaching office to be able to head off that train wreck in advance, rather than letting the two trains collide, . . .? [p. 175]<\/span><\/p>\n They do not<\/em>. If Hays was so sure they did<\/em>, why in the world wouldn\u2019t he nail it down once and for all with documentation? Instead, we get his usual bald assertion without demonstration. His research abilities are about equal to a nine-year-old writing a book report. He just didn\u2019t get<\/em> it. Poor fellow . . .<\/p>\n To begin with, the particular doctrine (Assumption of Mary) is a theological innovation. It was unknown before the 5C. [p. 176]<\/span><\/p>\n As shown, it was present (implied) in Revelation 12 and follows deductively from the logical end of Mary\u2019s Immaculate Conception or sinlessness. The latter is explicitly stated in Luke 1:28, closely scrutinized. After the biblical period, it took a while to develop fully, as is the case with many doctrines (where Catholics and Protestants agree), including trinitarianism and the Two Natures of Christ.<\/p>\n In addition, the theory of development is a theological innovation. It represents a fundamental break with how the church of Rome used to define sacred tradition. [p. 176]<\/span><\/p>\n Sheer nonsense (I\u2019m tempted to use a much stronger description!). It was very explicit in St. Vincent of Lerins in the 5th century and almost as much in St. Augustine. See my article, Development of Doctrine: Patristic & Historical Development (Featuring Much Documentation from St. Augustine, St. Vincent of Lerins, St. Thomas Aquinas, Vatican I, Popes Pius IX, Pius X, Etc.)<\/a> [3-19-02]. This is exactly what Hays desperately needed to learn and understand, but alas, he never did.<\/p>\n Notice that the Assumption of Mary was promulgated despite unanimous opposition of Catholic theological faculties at the time. That\u2019s not just because the doctrine itself lacks traditional pedigree, but because the justification is yet another theology innovation. [p. 176]<\/span><\/p>\n More poppycock.\u00a0Catholic theologian Alan Schreck observed:<\/p>\n I don\u2019t know how many Catholic scholars (or \u201cCatholic\u201d in name only) rejected the Assumption in 1950. I haven\u2019t found anything. But then again, as usual, Steve hasn\u2019t give us any documentation so why bother? It\u2019s his<\/em> burden to establish his claim<\/em>.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Practical Matters<\/em><\/strong>: Perhaps some of my 4,300+ 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>.\u00a0![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2023\/05\/WhoreOfBabylon2.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n\n
\nchanges within that unit. [p. 168]<\/span><\/p>\n
\nApostolic Succession: More Biblical Arguments<\/a> [1-6-17]<\/span><\/div>\n\n