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 9: Magisterium]<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n By what authority?<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n The dispute between Catholics and Protestants is in part a dispute over legitimate authority. You have two competing claimants: Scripture alone or the Roman Magisterium. [p. 464]<\/span><\/p>\n That\u2019s not accurate. The completing claims are two opposing rules of faith: sola Scriptura<\/em> (one infallible and ultimate authority) vs. Scripture-Tradition-Church (three completely harmonious infallible, ultimate authorities). Catholics routinely call their rule \u201cthe three-legged stool.\u201d Once again, Hays seems unaware of this, since that phrase never appears in his book. Perhaps he understands the concept<\/em>, though. We\u2019ll see as we go through the final 230 pages.<\/p>\n Given the Magisterium, he can appeal to the authority of the Magisterium, yet he needs a preliminary argument independent of the Magisterium to legitimate the Magisterium in the first place. [p. 464]<\/span><\/p>\n Exactly; and we do that from the joint testimony of Holy Scripture and sacred apostolic tradition.<\/p>\n Standing in judgment of the Magisterium<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n Continuity at the level of Sacred Tradition must be demonstrable. The Magisterium must be able to show continuity, not stipulate continuity. The argument can\u2019t be that it\u2019s consistent because the Magisterium says so. No, that has it backwards. For the authority of the Magisterium hinges on continuity at the level of Sacred Tradition. So whether or not there is historical continuity at the level of Sacred Tradition is an independent judgment that must be made apart from the Magisterium. [p. 466]<\/span><\/p>\n Yep; and accordingly we Catholic apologists show that the Church fathers believed en masse<\/em> in Catholic doctrines, or by consensus. See, for example my own massive research on whether the Church fathers held to sola Scriptura<\/em><\/a>. But this is not just a Catholic burden. Protestants, in claiming that their revolution was a \u201creformation\u201d assumed that they were brining back a state of affairs that was originally present in the early Church. Hays tries to be virtually totally ahistorical, but it\u2019s all a pose and a pretense. It\u2019s impossible for any Christian to be completely (consistently, thoughtfully) ahistorical.<\/p>\n If sola scriptura is the problem, is the magisterium the solution?<\/strong>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Protestants don\u2019t find the purported evidence for the magisterium convincing. They don\u2019t find the biblical prooftexts and patristic prooftexts convincing. [p. 467]<\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s always fascinating to me why one group of people is utterly unconvinced of what another group finds totally convincing. All we can do is present the evidences that we believe are compelling for our own positions. Some will be convinced of them (for many reasons) and others won\u2019t be (for many reasons). But the above two sentences are good because they show that Hays understood that our own argument for Catholic authority is not viciously circular, as he has exclaimed times without number. No! We set forth<\/span> \u201cbiblical prooftexts and patristic prooftexts\u201d in support of our position. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Now, Hays remained unpersuaded. But we do<\/em> offer a non-circular basis for our claims (often utilizing the opinions of Protestant scholars in agreement on particular issues; I habitually do so). In other words, Hays may have disagreed with our conclusions, but he couldn\u2019t say that our arguments are viciously circular and beg the question. They are not and do not, and even he knew that, as indicated by this statement. On the other hand, I turn the tables and argue that in fact it is<\/a> Protestantism, denominationalism, and sola Scriptura<\/em> that are logically self-defeating<\/a>.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n If God intended the magisterium to be the solution, why didn\u2019t he provide convincing evidence? [p. 467]<\/span><\/p>\n We say that He did<\/em>, and that\u2019s the dispute.<\/span><\/p>\n Evidence sufficient so that everyone is persuaded by the \u201csolution\u201d? [p. 467]<\/span><\/p>\n In the real (and fallen) world, that rarely happens, for various reasons. But there can be a significant, noteworthy agreement within one group, above all others.<\/span><\/p>\n Umpires who bet on their own team<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n The papacy is, in itself, a product of theological development, so popes have a vested interest in developments that aggrandize the papacy. They have a direct hand in writing their own job description. [p. 480]<\/span><\/p>\n Is that why the most momentous dogmatic development in the history of the papacy \u2014 the ex cathedra<\/em> declaration of the pope\u2019s infallibility \u2014 was declared by an ecumenical council<\/em> (Vatican I in 1870) and not by the pope himself, because popes are self-interested? Is that why it took over eighteen centuries to come about at this highest dogmatic and authoritative level: because all of those popes were so eager to write<\/span> \u201ctheir own job description\u201d <\/span>and declare that they had this power? Yes, makes a lot of sense, doesn\u2019t it?<\/span><\/p>\n But what kind of unity does [Bishop Robert] Barron think Jn 17 refers to? Surely not doctrinal unity. [p. 480]<\/span><\/p>\n To the contrary, it\u2019s certainly doctrinal unity along with every other<\/em> kind. Jesus prayed \u201cthat they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee . . . even as we are one<\/em>, I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one<\/em>\u201d (Jn 17:21-23). The Father and the Son are equal as two Persons of the Trinity. They don\u2019t disagree at all<\/em>, on anything<\/em>. Indeed, they cannot. It\u2019s not even possible<\/em>, because they are all omniscient as well as one in essence. Surely, if Jesus intended to sanction or incorporate the hundreds of contradictory, clashing Protestant theological claims, an analogy to the absolute unity of the Holy Trinity would be the very last<\/em> one He would make.<\/span><\/p>\n The fact that He did<\/em> use it is a profound indication and indeed a strong proof that He desires a profound doctrinal unity amongst Christians. Yet Hays denies<\/em> this, and (rather bizarrely) thinks that<\/span> \u201csurely\u201d<\/span> Jesus did not<\/em> have<\/span> \u201cdoctrinal unity\u201d<\/span> in mind at all in this prayer. Wonders never cease. But what is a Protestant to do? This is such an obvious and unanswerable \u2014 downright embarrassing \u2014 condemnation of all denominationalism that it has to be rationalized away somehow. So Hays merely wished<\/em> it away and his readers and followers uncritically gobbled it up, apparently not considering how utterly ludicrous of an opinion this was.<\/span><\/p>\n Proto-papacy<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n One objection that I\u2019ve raised to Catholicism is the absence of an OT magisterium. Why is that necessary under the new covenant but unnecessary under the old covenant? [p. 486]<\/span><\/p>\n Hays in this section raised the issue of the OT priests as a proposed quasi-magisterium and shot it down. But he never mentioned prophets. I wrote in my book,<\/span> The One-Minute Apologist<\/a>\u00a0<\/i>(2007):<\/span><\/p>\n Since infallibility is inferior to, and a less extraordinary gift than inspiration, we should not be more surprised at it than we are at inspiration, or think it is less likely to occur, or implausible. God worked through the writers of the Bible (inspiration means, literally, \u201cGod-breathed\u201d), and this made it possible for the Bible to be without error. Some of the biblical writers, like David, Paul, Matthew, and Peter, had been great sinners at one time or other in their lives. Yet they were used by God to write inspired Scripture. Even in Old Testament times, some were granted this gift of special protection from error; for example, the Levites, who were teachers, among other things:<\/span><\/p>\n Malachi<\/strong> 2:6-8<\/strong>:\u00a0\u201cTrue instruction was in his mouth, and no wrong was found on his lips. He walked with me in peace and uprightness, and he turned many from iniquity. For the lips of a priest should guard knowledge, and men should seek instruction from his mouth, for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Prophets routinely purported to proclaim the very \u201cword of the LORD.\u201d This is a much greater claim than infallibility under limited conditions. Papal infallibility is primarily a preventive, or \u201cnegative\u201d guarantee, not positive inspiration. It is easy to argue, then, that infallibility is a far less noteworthy gift than the \u201crevelation on the spot\u201d that we observe in the prophets:<\/span><\/p>\n 1 Samuel 15:10<\/strong>:\u00a0\u201cThe word of the LORD came to Samuel:\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n 2 Samuel 23:2<\/strong>:\u00a0\u201cThe Spirit of the LORD speaks by me, his word is upon my tongue.\u201d [King David]<\/span><\/p>\n 1 Chronicles 17:3<\/strong>:\u00a0\u201cBut that same night the word of the LORD came to Nathan,\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Isaiah 38:4<\/strong>:\u00a0\u201cThen the word of the LORD came to Isaiah:\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Jeremiah 26:15<\/strong>:\u00a0\u201c. . . the LORD sent me to you to speak all these words in your ears.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Ezekiel 33:1<\/strong>:\u00a0\u201cThe word of the LORD came to me:\u201d [\u201cword of the LORD\u201d appears 60 times in the Book of Ezekiel]<\/span><\/p>\n Haggai 1:13<\/strong>:\u00a0\u201cThen Haggai, the messenger of the LORD, spoke to the people with the LORD\u2019s message, \u2018I am with you, says the LORD.\u2019\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n To begin with, evangelicals aren\u2019t bound by that article of the creed (\u201che descended into hell\u201d). It\u2019s just a dubious tradition. I think evangelicals should edit it out of the creed. [p. 491]<\/span><\/p>\n The descent into hell shouldn\u2019t be in a creed. No point reinterpreting it. Just admit it was a mistake and move on. [p. 492]<\/span><\/p>\n First of all, it wasn\u2019t hell but Hades \/ Sheol.\u00a0The word\u00a0hell<\/em>\u00a0actually has a wide latitude in theological usage. The\u00a0Catechism of the Catholic Church<\/em>\u00a0elaborates:<\/span><\/p>\n 633<\/strong>\u00a0Scripture calls the abode of the dead, to which the dead Christ went down, \u201chell\u201d \u2013\u00a0Sheol\u00a0<\/em>in Hebrew or\u00a0Hades\u00a0<\/em>in Greek \u2013 because those who are there are deprived of the vision of God. Such is the case for all the dead, whether evil or righteous, while they await the Redeemer: which does not mean that their lot is identical, as Jesus shows through the parable of the poor man Lazarus who was received into \u201cAbraham\u2019s bosom\u201d . . .<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Hades<\/em>\u00a0\/\u00a0Sheol<\/em>\u00a0is distinct from the biblical Greek place,\u00a0gehenna<\/em>, which refers to \u201c\u2019the unquenchable fire\u2019 reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe\u201d (CCC 1034). So did Hays reject the notion that Jesus preached in Hades after His death? What did he think of these passages, then?:<\/span><\/p>\n Ephesians 4:8-10<\/strong>\u00a0Therefore it is said, \u201cWhen he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men.\u201d [9] (In saying, \u201cHe ascended,\u201d what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower parts of the earth? [10] He who descended is he who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.)<\/span><\/p>\n 1 Peter 3:18-20<\/strong> For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit; [19] in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison, [20] who formerly did not obey, . . .<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Hays mentions and links to<\/span> \u201can evangelical defense\u201d<\/span> of the clause in the creed that he rejects. It\u2019s the article,<\/span> \u201cHe Descended Into Hell\u201d<\/a> by Lee Irons, Ph.D. (November 2012). Irons very helpfully explains why the word \u201chell\u201d is used in the creed and why it\u2019s misleading to English speakers:<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cSheol\u201d in Hebrew becomes \u201cHades\u201d in Greek, and \u201cHades\u201d in Greek becomes \u201cInfer(n)us\u201d in Latin, which is the word used in the Apostles\u2019 Creed (descendit ad inferna<\/em> [or inferos<\/em>]). In the Vulgate, most occurrences of \u201cSheol\u201d in the OT or \u201cHades\u201d in the NT are rendered \u201cInfer(n)us,\u201d i.e., the underworld. . . .<\/span><\/p>\n So when we recite the Creed and say that Christ \u201cdescended into hell,\u201d we are not saying that he descended into Gehenna or the Lake of Fire. Instead, we are affirming that he descended to the underworld, the realm of the dead, called \u201cSheol\u201d in Hebrew and \u201cHades\u201d in Greek. (p. 5)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Keep in mind that even if (ex hypothesi<\/em>) Jesus went to hell when he died, there could be no eyewitnesses to that event this side of the grave. [p. 493]<\/span><\/p>\n So what? This is why we have a thing like inspired Scripture. Paul and peter wrote Scripture, inspired by God. The result was (literally) \u201cGod-breathed\u201d). That\u2019s how we can know it happened (from the two Bible passages above that referred to it).<\/span><\/p>\n Why is it unacceptable for you suppose that God failed to protect the church fathers from falsely believing the descensus ad infernos<\/em>, but acceptable for you to suppose that God failed to protect the vast majority of Jews from repudiating the prophesied messiah? [p. 493]<\/span><\/p>\n Because inspired, inerrant revelation<\/em> (Eph 4:8-10; 1 Pet 3:18-20) informs us<\/em> that Jesus descended to Hades. Case closed.<\/span><\/p>\n Creeds are not the ultimate standard of comparison. Only revelation enjoys that distinction. [p. 493]<\/span><\/p>\n Exactly my present point!<\/span><\/p>\n From a Protestant standpoint, the church fathers aren\u2019t authority figures. . . . you labor under the illusion that according to Protestant epistemology, the church fathers are authority figures? Where did you come up with that? [p. 491]<\/span><\/p>\n Oh, to name one, a guy named John Calvin:<\/span><\/p>\n What, then, you will say, is there no authority in the definitions of councils? Yes, indeed; for I do not contend that all councils are to be condemned, and all their acts rescinded, or, as it is said, made one complete erasure. (Institutes of the Christian Religion<\/em>, IV, 9:8)<\/span><\/p>\n Thus those ancient Councils of Nice, Constantinople, the first of Ephesus, Chalcedon, and the like, which were held for refuting errors, we willingly embrace, and reverence as sacred, in so far as relates to doctrines of faith, for they contain nothing but the pure and genuine interpretation of Scripture, which the holy Fathers with spiritual prudence adopted to crush the enemies of religion who had then arisen. In some later councils, also, we see displayed a true zeal for religion, and moreover unequivocal marks of genius, learning, and prudence. (IV, 9:8)<\/span><\/p>\n Having proved that no power was given to the Church to set up any new doctrine, let us now treat of the power attributed to them in the interpretation of Scripture. We readily admit, that when any doctrine is brought under discussion, there is not a better or surer remedy than for a council of true bishops to meet and discuss the controverted point. There will be much more weight in a decision of this kind, to which the pastors of churches have agreed in common after invoking the Spirit of Christ, than if each, adopting it for himself, should deliver it to his people, or a few individuals should meet in private and decide. Secondly, When bishops have assembled in one place, they deliberate more conveniently in common, fixing both the doctrine and the form of teaching it, lest diversity give offence. Thirdly, Paul prescribes this method of determining doctrine. For when he gives the power of deciding to a single church, he shows what the course of procedure should be in more important cases\u2014namely, that the churches together are to take common cognisance. And the very feeling of piety tells us, that if any one trouble the Church with some novelty in doctrine, and the matter be carried so far that there is danger of a greater dissension, the churches should first meet, examine the question, and at length, after due discussion, decide according to Scripture, which may both put an end to doubt in the people, and stop the mouths of wicked and restless men, so as to prevent the matter from proceeding farther. Thus when Arius arose, the Council of Nice was convened, and by its authority both crushed the wicked attempts of this impious man, and restored peace to the churches which he had vexed, and asserted the eternal divinity of Christ in opposition to his sacrilegious dogma. (IV, 9:13)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n And I note in passing another guy of no particular import to Protestantism: Martin Luther. The celebrated Protestant historian Philip Schaff stated that the following letter of his referred to \u201cthe real presence of Christ in the Lord\u2019s Supper\u201d:<\/span><\/p>\n Moreover, this article has been unanimously believed and held from the beginning of the Christian Church to the present hour, as may be shown from the books and writings of the dear fathers, both in the Greek and Latin languages, \u2014 which testimony of the entire holy Christian Church ought to be sufficient for us, even if we had nothing more. For it is dangerous and dreadful to hear or believe anything against the unanimous testimony, faith, and doctrine of the entire holy Christian Church, as it has been held unanimously in all the world up to this year 1500<\/em>. Whoever now doubts of this, he does just as much as if he believed in no Christian Church, and condemns not only the entire holy Christian Church as a damnable heresy, but Christ Himself, and all the Apostles and Prophets, . . . (Letter to Albrecht, Margrave of Brandenburg and Duke of Prussia, 1532; Weimar German edition of Luther\u2019s Works, Vol. XXX; cited in Schaff, The Life and Labours of St. Augustine<\/em>, Oxford University: 1854, 95. Italics are Schaff\u2019s own)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n We have therefore the testimony of the ancient church . . . (p. 161)<\/span><\/p>\n And we confess that we are greatly confirmed by the testimonies of the ancient church . . . Nor do we approve of it if someone invents for himself a meaning which conflicts with all antiquity, and for which there are clearly no testimonies of the church. (pp. 208-209)<\/span><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2023\/05\/WhoreOfBabylon2.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n\n