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 12: Sola Scriptura<\/em>]<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n What does sola scriptura<\/em> mean?<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n It\u2019s become a Catholic trope to say that sola scriptura is self-contradictory, and I\u2019ve seen Protestant apologists struggle with that charge. [p. 621]<\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s not a trope; it\u2019s a truth<\/a>.<\/p>\n The historic target of sola scriptura is the papacy and post-apostolic church councils. Sola scripture is the claim that there are no infallible post-apostolic church councils. Likewise, that God didn\u2019t institute the papacy. The pope is not a divine mouthpiece. [p. 621]<\/span><\/p>\n Yes, that\u2019s how Martin Luther was forced to adopt the position, by default. He didn\u2019t like Catholic authority so he had to come up with something else. As it was, he was forced into a corner in in the Leipzig Disputation in 1519<\/a>. This is not<\/em> how major Christian beliefs ought to originate.<\/p>\n Apropos (iii), suppose a Catholic apologist asks us where do we find that in the Bible? [p. 621]<\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s a perfectly valid and expected question, seeing as Protestants have made Scripture the sola infallible authority. So if sola Scriptura<\/em> isn\u2019t found in the Bible itself, then it\u2019s simply a fallible tradition of men, to which I ask: why should anyone believe it? At the very<\/em> least it should<\/em> be, and we would expect<\/em> it to be in the inspired Bible, if in fact it\u2019s true.<\/p>\n But that\u2019s the point\u2013we don\u2019t find the papacy in the Bible. [p. 621]<\/span><\/p>\n The papacy is all over the New Testament, in the form of Petrine primacy, as I have massively demonstrated<\/a>.<\/p>\n And we don\u2019t find divine promises to inspire post-apostolic church councils in the Bible. We find promises to the apostles. But we don\u2019t find comparable promises to bishops or post-apostolic church councils. [p. 621]<\/span><\/p>\n What we find is the Jerusalem council, which consisted of both apostles and elders (Acts 15:2, 4, 6). It \u2014 led by Peter the first pope (15:7-14) \u2014 promulgated an infallible decree for all Christians (Acts 16:4), which was indeed inspired by the Holy Spirit (15:28). This is altogether adequate as a representative model of how Christian councils (as a matter of ecclesiology) would work all through history. It\u2019s pointless to believe that such an event would be written about in the Bible, but at the same time pretend that it has no relevance for the rest of Christian history. By the same reasoning, it\u2019s foolish to accept Petrine primacy (as many Protestant scholars do) but think that it has nothing to do with the papacy or papal succession<\/a>. Why should it only be there in the mid-1st century and then disappear?<\/p>\n Catholics appeal to Acts 15, but apostles along with a sibling of Jesus were participants. So that\u2019s no precedent for post-apostolic church councils. [p. 621]<\/span><\/p>\n It also consisted of \u201celders\u201d: which the text states about six times. So it has all the relevance in the world for future councils.<\/p>\n Moreover, Catholics distinguish between local councils and ecumenical councils. But we don\u2019t find that distinction in Scripture. [p. 622]<\/span><\/p>\n We do find the prototype of the latter in the Jerusalem council: it was presided over by the person who is presented in the Bible as the leader of the early Christian Church. It made a decree that bound all Christians and which, indeed, has been held by virtually all Christians since that time. Paul went around proclaiming it in cities far away in Asia Minor. Therefore, it was not merely a local council. It was in Jerusalem, which was at that time the center of world Christianity, just as the councils Vatican I and II were held in Rome: the center of world Christianity.<\/p>\n Destination unknown<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n Because the Bible is a finished product, it contains no surprises. We know what we\u2019re getting. We know what to expect. [p. 623]<\/span><\/p>\n Why is it, then, that Protestants have endless internal disputes, if the Bible is formally sufficient to function as their rule of faith?<\/p>\n How to read a map<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n To begin with, this isn\u2019t a hypothetical question for Protestants. We believe in sola Scriptura because that is how God in fact chooses to operate. [p. 624]<\/span><\/p>\n This is circular reasoning. We only know, in the final analysis, how God operates by the Bible: His inerrant and inspired revelation. But that Bible doesn\u2019t teach sola Scriptura<\/em>. It\u2019s a man-made, extrabiblical tradition of men: exactly what Jesus taught us to avoid.<\/p>\n The question of sola Scriptura<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n I like to keep up with the competition. Brand Pitre is one of the best younger generation Catholic apologists. [p. 625]<\/span><\/p>\n Really? He didn\u2019t \u201ckeep up\u201d with me<\/em>. I wrote a book critiquing sola Scriptura<\/em> from the Bible<\/a>, published by Catholic Answers in 2012, and a second self-published one<\/a> in the same year that tackled two Anglicans, widely considered to be among the best historic defenders of this false position, and I\u2019ve written more articles on this topic than any other one. But because Hays had by then concluded that I was \u201cevil\u201d<\/span> and \u201cschizophrenic,\u201d<\/span> etc. he had no interest in critiquing my books (like James White did: twice) or articles. Even if he thought I was a terrible, lousy apologist (as he did, post-2009), here was his golden opportunity to dismantle my book and be the great champion for sola Scriptura<\/em>. It\u2019s not like I am a nobody in Catholic apologetics.<\/p>\n All of the active anti-Catholic apologists of our time \u2014 including Hay\u2019s colleague and successor on his blog, Jason Engwer \u2014 have dealt with my material; some of them quite a bit and for several years. But something about my work threatened ands unnerved Hays to such an extent that he felt he had to hurl every insult imaginable my way, in order to besmirch my name and character, so that his followers would ignore me. Of course that is no refutation at all of my arguments.<\/p>\n i) Believe and obey divine revelation<\/span> No it\u2019s not. Catholics believe all three of these things as much as Protestants do, yet we don\u2019t hold to sola Scriptura<\/em>, which means, according to the standard Protestant definition<\/a>: \u201cScripture is the only infallible and final authority for Christian doctrine.\u201d Our position is that the Bible itself teaches that there is an authoritative, infallible tradition and Church, so that if you accept all of biblical teaching, you arrive at the Catholic \u201cthree-legged stool\u201d rule of faith.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n This concludes my examination of the late Steve Hays\u2019 \u201cbook\u201d Catholicism<\/em>. He obviously enjoyed and relished taking potshots at Catholicism and playing games with his usual sophistry. My next and last project having to do with him will be my multi-part examination of his \u201cbook\u201d Biblical Calvinism<\/em><\/a>, which is 819 pages. It\u2019s a whole different ballgame comprehensively presenting and defending one\u2019s own position. I suspect that he will offer far more serious arguments and less sophistry in this<\/em> book. I will relentlessly offer counter-arguments from the Bible. It\u2019s nothing new for me. I have devoted two books and part of a third to debunking Calvinism and have large Calvin and Calvinism web pages, including massive line-by-line responses to large portions of Calvin\u2019s Institutes of the Christian Religion<\/em>. I know the arguments, and I know how to refute them: primarily from the Bible.<\/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
\nii) Don\u2019t elevate non-revelation to the status of divine revelation<\/span>
\niii) Disregard whatever is contrary to divine revelation<\/span>
\nScriptures teaches these propositions. That\u2019s sola Scriptura in a nutshell. [p. 630]<\/span><\/p>\n