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 8: Canonics]<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n The gates of hell shall not prevail<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n Like so many Catholic apologists, Williams is a layman. Not a Catholic theologian like Karl Rahner or Gerhard Ludwig M\u00fcller. Not a graduate of a Catholic seminary. [p. 403]<\/span><\/p>\n Like so many Catholic apologists, G. K. Chesterton was a layman. Not a Catholic theologian like Karl Rahner or Gerhard Ludwig M\u00fcller. Not a graduate of a Catholic seminary or even of any college.\u00a0Like so many Catholic apologists, Peter Kreeft is a layman. Not a Catholic theologian like Karl Rahner or Gerhard Ludwig M\u00fcller. Not a graduate of a Catholic seminary, but a philosopher.<\/p>\n Like so many Catholic apologists, Malcom Muggeridge, Frank Sheed, and Thomas Howard were laymen. Not graduates from Catholic seminary, but a journalist, a lawyer, and an English professor. Etc., etc. ad infinitum<\/em>. Like so many Protestant apologists (among whom he is widely considered to have been the best), C. S. Lewis was a layman. Not a graduate of a Protestant seminary or Bible college, but a professor of literature. Etc., etc.<\/p>\n What we\u2019re getting from him is the usual version of Catholicism presented by lay Catholic apologists. An idealized, retro version of Catholicism. [p. 403]<\/span><\/p>\n In other words, they present and defend Catholic orthodoxy: the actual teaching of the Church, not the dishonest pseudo-version presented by theological liberals and dissidents, whom Hays ridiculously and quixotically pretends are the magisterium and gold standard of Catholicism. It\u2019s a constant theme of his, but the endless repeating of a lie makes it no less of a lie or no stronger an argument.<\/p>\n A version of Catholicism that\u2019s well to the right of mainstream Catholic scholarship (e.g. Bible scholars, church historians). [p. 403]<\/span><\/p>\n Of course it is, because these scholars Hays has in mind are to the left of the norm and the standard: the \u201cradical center\u201d of orthodoxy. But almost all reputable Catholic apologists are in the center of the spectrum: orthodox.<\/p>\n Well to the right of the contemporary hierarchy. [p. 403]<\/span><\/p>\n Since no infallible doctrine has been changed, this is untrue as well. They are orthodox as a group. Individuals may be, and are, heterodox on this or that issue, but as individuals they have no magisterial authority, anymore than scholars do, as persons or as a group.<\/p>\n From a Protestant perspective, \u201cScripture\u201d (or the Bible) is the inspired record of God\u2019s public, propositional revelation. By \u201cpublic\u201d, I mean a revelation that\u2019s normative at every time and place\u2013unlike a topical private revelation to provide guidance to a particular individual in a particular situation. [p. 403]<\/span><\/p>\n From a Catholic perspective, \u201cScripture\u201d (or the Bible) is the inspired record of God\u2019s public, propositional revelation. By \u201cpublic\u201d, I mean a revelation that\u2019s normative at every time and place\u2013unlike a topical private revelation to provide guidance to a particular individual in a particular situation.<\/p>\n If there is no viable or comparable alternative to Scripture (as defined), then by process of elimination, sola Scriptura<\/em> is the only remaining option. [p. 403]<\/span><\/p>\n But of course there is, because that same inspired revelation teaches that authoritative tradition and a Church exist, and are infallible under certain defined conditions. The Bible itself teaches a \u201cthree-legged stool\u201d rule of faith, not sola Scriptura<\/em>.<\/p>\n In that respect, the sufficiency of Scripture is defined by contrast to the alternatives. They are insufficient. Indeed, they are false alternatives. You don\u2019t have to prove sola Scriptura<\/em> or the sufficiency of Scripture directly; rather, you only have to disprove rival paradigms. [p. 403]<\/span><\/p>\n The formal sufficiency of Scripture is defined by contrast to the alternative, sola Scriptura<\/em>. It is insufficient. Indeed, it\u2019s a false and unbiblical alternative. We can not only disprove sola Scriptura<\/em> from Scripture, but also prove our rival paradigm from the Bible.<\/p>\n If Scripture is the only source of God\u2019s public, propositional revelation, then it naturally enjoys a certain primacy in relation to other sources of information or belief. Divine revelation is normative in a way that nonrevelatory sources or putative candidates are not. [p. 403]<\/span><\/p>\n In terms of being inspired yes, but in terms of infallible authority, the norms of faith, and the rule of faith, no. Sacred Tradition and the Catholic Church are also infallible and interpretive norms. Scripture can be primary in one sense and equal in others, to tradition and the Church, and works in tandem with them, just as God the Father has \u201cmonarchical primacy\u201d in one sense, and is equal in others, to God the Son, Jesus Christ, and God the Holy Spirit, and works in tandem with them.<\/p>\n [T]he sufficiency of Scripture doesn\u2019t rule out the necessity of extrabiblical evidence to identify Scripture and interpret Scripture. [p. 404]<\/span><\/p>\n That\u2019s correct. But if the latter sources are used, they are merely fallible, so the standard of authority and the certainty are considerably less. And that is a real epistemological problem for Protestants (in terms of canonicity), whether they realize it or not. R. C. Sproul did, to his credit. Hays did not, and continued to play games and pretend that there was no inherent difficulty in such a scenario.<\/p>\n Feser fizzles<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n Catholic apologists typically ignore the internal evidence for the canon. It\u2019s important to draw attention to that line of evidence. [p. 415]<\/span><\/p>\n That disregards the amount of internal evidence for the inspiration of Scripture and the canon of Scripture. [p. 418]<\/span><\/p>\n I don\u2019t. In my article, \u201cAre All the Biblical Books Self-Evidently Canonical?\u201d<\/a> (6-22-06), I wrote at the end:<\/p>\n The Bible can\u2019t be used to produce an argument based on what individual biblical books supposedly claim, when\u00a0they don\u2019t in fact\u00a0claim<\/em> it. . . .\u00a0I don\u2019t deny\u00a0any<\/em>\u00a0\u201cself-attestation\u201d; I only deny that this alone was sufficient to establish a known canon with definite boundaries, or that it is as sweeping a characteristic of \u201call\u201d the biblical books as some Protestants make out.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Likewise, in my article, \u201cAre All Bible Books Self-Evidently Inspired?\u201d<\/a> (6-19-06), the first draft of what later appeared in my book, The One-Minute Apologist<\/em> (2007), I observed:<\/p>\n There are indeed several internal biblical evidences of inspiration and canonicity, yet (despite this fact), there were many differences in the early Church regarding biblical books. . . . nothing illustrates the falsity of the claim of \u201cself-attesting\u201d books better than the history of the process of canonization itself. . . . If everything were so obvious, how could there be so many differences? . . . Believers in the early Church (such as St. Athanasius or St. Augustine) were just as zealous for the Bible and Christian truth as Christians today. Yet they often disagreed on this score. . . .<\/p>\n It\u2019s very easy to make such (somewhat logically circular) claims, and \u201chindsight is 20-20\u201d; however, there is no way to test or disprove (or, for that matter, prove) them other than by looking at what actually happened in history. . . . The fact remains that there were disagreements because some books were not all that clearly inspired (and other non-biblical books seemed to be).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I also cited F. F. Bruce in agreement:<\/p>\n [O]nly one book of the New Testament explicitly claims prophetic inspiration. (The Canon of Scripture<\/em>, Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1988, 280-281)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I think Bruce was referring to Revelation: \u201cthe words of the prophecy of this book\u201d (22:18) and \u201cthe book of this prophecy\u201d (22:19). 2 Timothy 3:16 states that \u201cAll scripture is inspired\u201d but of course Paul in that letter doesn\u2019t identify which<\/em> books these are. I cited another opinion of Bruce\u2019s, too:<\/p>\n It is unlikely, for example, that the Spirit\u2019s witness would enable a reader to discern that Ecclesiastes is the word of God while Ecclesiasticus is not . . . (Ibid.<\/em>, 281-282)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n None of this is in line with Hays\u2019 fanciful view that every single book is self-evidently inspired, thus precluding any need for authoritative Church pronouncements. Had Hays been around in, say, AD 200, surely he would have (so it would seem from his confident rhetoric) correctly identified (167 years before Athanasius) every single biblical book in both Testaments, and would have (as an extra bonus) declared that anyone who didn\u2019t agree with him either: 1) couldn\u2019t comprehend what was so plain in the Bible (i.e., was stupid), 2) had a judgment clouded by sin, 3) was deliberately dishonest, and\/or 4) had a nefarious \u201cCatholic agenda\u201d complete with the obligatory circular reasoning and \u201cinfallibility regress.\u201d<\/p>\n Actually, there are contemporary Catholic commentators who often admit that traditional Catholic exegesis was wrong, and Protestants were right. [p. 417]<\/span><\/p>\n DUH! No kidding! Seeing that the Church has only required one definitive interpretation of a mere 7-9 Bible passages<\/a>, then all the other thousands could be interpreted differently, and many times (as in all fields of knowledge ands scholarship) a Protestant exegete may have been right, and one or many Catholics wrong. None of this adversely affects infallibility in the least, because it is overwhelmingly not<\/em> in play. Protestant polemicists (at least anti-Catholic ones) seem constitutionally unable to comprehend how \u201cfree\u201d Catholic exegetes are. I\u2019ll keep telling them the truth about that. Maybe over decades it\u2019ll eventually sink into their thick skulls.<\/p>\n Moreover, sometimes Protestant exegetes massively support<\/em> positions regarded as \u201cCatholic distinctives\u201d in a way that Steve would vehemently disagree with, such as, for example, the thirty I have documented who agree that Peter was the \u201cRock.\u201d Truth is truth, wherever it comes from.<\/p>\n Sola scriptura<\/em> . . . denies the infallibility of the church. [p. 418]<\/span><\/p>\n Thank you, and of sacred tradition, too. Protestants, defending this false doctrine, often overlook what it denies<\/em>, over against what it asserts. What it denies (and what it contradicts in the Bible)\u00a0is what Catholic apologists usually focus upon.<\/p>\n [T]he Catholic formulation of the Trinity isn\u2019t all that rigorous. Consider Karl Rahner\u2019s reformulations. [p. 419]<\/span><\/p>\n First of all (I reiterate for the umpteenth time) one man doesn\u2019t definitively speak for the Church (unless it\u2019s the pope, and even then under very specific conditions). Hays seems to perpetually project onto us the \u201cmagisterium of head counts of scholars\u201d that in effect, functions as the Protestant authority structure. It\u2019s a \u201csociological magisterium,\u201d if you will. If lots of good ol\u2019 evangelical and Calvinist scholars say one thing (a form of both the ad populum<\/em> and genetic<\/em> fallacies), then it becomes gospel truth (at least for a time). We don\u2019t function that way, and it would be nice if Hays (not an unintelligent man) could have figured this out.<\/p>\n Secondly, I don\u2019t know if Rahner \u201creformulated\u201d the Trinity in heretical terms or not. I\u2019d have to see what he wrote and thought about it. Chances are it was a legitimate development. But I certainly wouldn\u2019t take Hays\u2019 bald assertion of this, rather than actually examining it. If he wants to make such a claim, then he needs to present the evidence. But that was habitually too laborious for him to do. He wants to make the potshots and then retreat and laugh about people\u2019s reactions, rather than seriously<\/em> discuss the topic with an open mind.<\/p>\n Protestant scholars \u2014 in a burst of \u201cinspiration\u201d no doubt \u2014 figured out after 1930 that contraception was fine and dandy, even though no Christian group had ever held the position before that time. \u201cEveryone\u201d eventually started believing it in Protestant circles (especially after 1960 and the Pill), and so it then became okay! Then killjoy Pope St. Paul VI expressed the traditional Christian teaching in 1968: that it was not<\/em> okay, and continued to be grave sin, since moral truths don\u2019t change<\/em>.<\/p>\n Recently, by the way, Pope Francis (supposedly a flaming liberal dissident, according to Hays and even many deluded or misinformed Catholics these days)\u00a0 upheld and reaffirmed unchanging Catholic teaching on contraception<\/a>. And it\u2019s been like this with one moral (especially sexual) teaching after another in Protestant circles. Lots of Protestant denominations now think abortion is fine, and sodomy, and \u201cgay marriage\u201d and cohabitation and masturbation and divorce and euthanasia and self-mutilating sterilization procedures. You name it. I replied to arguments from Steve Hays regarding masturbation<\/a> in 2007 (and \u2014 rarity of rarities! \u2014 he actually directly interacted with me a bit, before he decided I was \u201cevil\u201d). He claimed he wasn\u2019t for or agin\u2019 it, but then talked about it as a \u201csexual safety valve\u201d<\/span> and wrote that \u201cthe morality of masturbation is debatable\u201d<\/span>.<\/p>\n [A]llegorical exegesis is contrary to how later Bible writers interpret earlier Bible writers. [p. 419]<\/span><\/p>\n Really<\/em>? Not always. St. Paul in Galatians 4:21-31 explicitly states about aspects of the story of Hagar and Sarah, \u201cNow this is an allegory\u201d (4:24). In 1 Corinthians 9:9-10 Paul provides an allegorical interpretation of the injunction to not muzzle an ox when it is plowing corn, comparing that to the obligation to pay Christian workers. In Romans 5:14 he refers to \u201cAdam, who was a type of the one who was to come.\u201d Elijah was a type of John the Baptist, etc. There are many such examples.<\/p>\n Can we be sure?<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n [Y]ou offer no counterargument. Rather, you simply push the rewind button and replay your prerecorded message. . . . All you have is slogans. You have nothing to back up the slogans. . . . Do you think it\u2019s clever for you to offer these snappy, unintelligent comebacks? Don\u2019t try to These are remarkably accurate descriptions of Steve\u2019s own frequent methodology. He can see and object to it in others but not in his own rhetoric and polemics.<\/p>\n Modern Catholicism treats Scripture as eminently fallible. [p. 449]<\/span><\/p>\n This is a lie. Catholicism treats Holy Scripture as it always has: as inerrant inspired revelation. See: \u201cVatican II and the Inerrancy of the Bible,\u201d<\/a> by Jeffrey Pinyan (10-10-10), \u201cVatican II Upheld Biblical Inerrancy (vs. David Palm)\u201d<\/a> [4-23-20], and \u201cThe Inerrancy of Scripture and the Second Vatican Council,\u201d<\/a> by Mark Joseph Zia, Faith & Reason<\/em>, 2006.<\/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>.\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
\nbe clever at the expense of intellectual honesty or comprehension. . . . I notice that when your claims are challenged, you have nothing in reserve. So you just repeat the original claim. You don\u2019t rebut the counterargument. [pp. 449-451]<\/span><\/p>\n