"Young Guns" in Catholic Online Apologetics: How Different Are They from the "Old Guard"? / Apologetics is Always a Difficult Spiritual Battle

 With fellow apologist Jimmy Akin at my house in 2004. We met again at the Catholic Answers offices this last May

This is a reply to an article by Devin Rose on the VirtuousPla.net site, entitled, Young Guns. My name was graciously mentioned in it. I had some thoughts in reply, that I posted there.

* * * * *

People are people. Catholic apologists are Catholic apologists. Zebras have stripes, etc. I don’t think it is that different. The fringe anti-Catholic wing of online Protestantism despises, e.g., the folks at “Called to Communion” (especially Bryan Cross) just as much as they detest us “older” apologists. I can attest to that, having seen many disparaging remarks. Whoever defends the Church will be in for the same treatment no matter how saintly and non-confrontational they act. That’s just how it goes.


If one is loved by one and all, I question whether they are vigorously defending Holy Mother Church, because many people get offended when you disagree with them (believe me, I know, after 30 years of apologetics in both the Protestant and Catholic worlds). This is a dynamic that hold true in all times and places because it is the perpetual struggle of truth over falsehood; right over wrong. We don’t want to be despised because we are truly jerks and uncharitable (because of our own poor behavior), but if we are loathed because we proclaim Catholic truth, then that is exactly what our Lord predicted would happen. It does not necessarily reflect badly upon how well we did our job, at all.

I have (friendly) quibbles with some of the characterizations: drawing contrasts where I don’t see much of that, myself. You clarified on the charity thing. Good. As for Point 2, Scott Hahn doesn’t interact online much (he doesn’t debate), but all the other “old guard” named are very active in this fashion. We’re all on Facebook and we all interact. Pat Madrid has 5000 Facebook followers; Jimmy Akin is up to 4581. I have 2500 in just eight months’ time. I think most are on Twitter, too (I am). Most use radio and TV and various other media. I’m the least “public,” by far (I just write away in my own home), but I have been on the radio about a dozen times.

As for Point 3 (being systematic), that’s nothing new to me at all: I have over 2600 posts on my blog, categorized in over 50 separate web pages. I deal with everything: atheists, science, sexual issues, war ethics, ecumenism, Lutheranism, Calvinism, anti-Catholics, Orthodoxy, Catholic traditionalism, Church fathers, development of doctrine, romantic theology a la Lewis and Tolkien, conversion and converts, you name it. So that is not “different” from me. The Catholic Answers website is quite systematic; so is Pat Madrid’s stuff, and Scott Hahn’s website(s).

I’m not trying to toot my own horn, or that of the “older guys” or create some kind of silly rivalry (not at all); I’m merely making the point that I don’t see the strong contrast that is drawn in the article, and question the accuracy of using the adjectives “new,” “new era,” “new wineskins,” “different,” “new media.”

Obviously, with each new wave of apologetics and outreach efforts there will be innovations and fresh approaches. I want to see “new guys” who are doing a good job, get more exposure and recognition. More power to all of ‘em. I commend any such efforts and rejoice to see them. But I don’t think there is any essential (or even very great) difference here.

We’re all in this together and can all learn from each other. If someone learns something from me I am flattered and give the glory to God; but I hope to always be open to learning from others, too, including the so-called “young guns.” I don’t want to ever become the “old dog” (at the ripe old age of 53) that can never learn “new tricks.”

* * *

As an example of some of what I was contending above, see the feature article on the anti-Catholic Beggars All site, by John Bugay, entitled, "The Bryan Cross Method Alert" (5-10-10). After all kinds of swipes taken, Bugay concludes at length that Cross's "method of argumentation is inherently dishonest." Earlier in the article he characterized Cross's style as "knowingly to convey a misleading impression to another person." It's the old "jesuitical casuistry" charge. Bugay in the combox expressly states this: "I've pulled out my copy of Pascal's 'Provincial Letters,' and I'm going to give them a look, on the topic of 'casuistry.'"

Nothing new under the sun. If Cross is using some kind of "new" method that is distinguishable in any significant way from older ones, the net result in the anti-Catholic's eyes is exactly the same. It's not a whit more effective in convincing people who are fundamentally hostile, than anything that has been done in the last 20 years online. Bugay attacks Cross again in an article dated 3-25-11, saying,

Bryan is one of those individuals in search of “the correctly marketable term,” a new phrase he can coin and throw out there to “the academy,” which will have his name attached to it, and for which people will fawn over him. . . . Maybe, someday, Bryan can be known, like Bultmann, for having discerned “the separation of the Jesus of history from the Christ of faith.”

These dynamics are inevitable. Called to Communion and Bryan Cross are relatively well-known, among the "young guns." Therefore, they are being increasingly attacked and savaged. The same thing will happen to anyone else who crosses paths with the leading anti-Catholics. The closer you get to the "front lines" and the longer you stay there, the more attacks will come (and with them the altogether human temptation to respond in kind, or to act in ways quite differently from a sweet, saintly demeanor). It's the nature of spiritual as well as military warfare.

Once a few points are scored in debate, then the anti-Catholic fangs come out and it is never the same again.  I guarantee that the young guns will not fare any differently, the more they engage these folks. And there is a time for a rebuke and strong language, too, if it is warranted. Jesus did that with the Pharisees; St. Paul did with various opponents (some of whom are named in his letters), and with entire churches (Galatians, Corinthians). Sometimes when a person is rightly rebuked, then the one doing it gets accused of engaging in the same behavior that was rebuked (I know from much personal experience!).

Any apologist who thinks that his work can and will always be "nicey-nicey" and "smiley" and all wrapped up in a pretty bow will have to learn the hard way, and may be in for some major disenchantment or disillusionment (I've seen many people "burn out"). If difficult scenarios and strong (personal) opposition aren't encountered, then (sorry), I don't think an apologist is fully doing his job. Opposition (and hence unpopularity) is inevitable.


With Protestants who are ecumenical, though, there is no problem achieving amiable, cordial, constructive debate. It's like night and day. Therefore, I contend that the essential difference is not some supposedly significantly "new" apologetic method vs. older ones, but rather, the difference in how an anti-Catholic Protestant responds, vs. how a Protestant who considers Catholics brothers in Christ will respond, and how the former responds, in direct proportion to how familiar he is with a Catholic opponent, and how many times he has been bested in argument by same.

Precisely the same dynamic also applies to apologetics in exchanges with atheists. There are the angry, irrational, "anti-Christian" ones (unfortunately the majority), and also the ones who can talk sensibly with those who differ from them. Nothing works with the former, but it is easy to dialogue with the latter. Again, the key is not the method of the Catholic, but the prior outlook of the particular atheist. This is crucial to understand. We won't be "successful" with everyone.

Our task as apologists is to vigorously share and defend the truth, with charity and gentleness and wisdom. The results are up to God, since it is only His grace that moves any heart closer to Him in the first place. Sometimes we are opposed and seem to achieve no result whatever (like Jeremiah); other times there is abundant visible fruit (as on the day of Pentecost or with St. Francis de Sales, winning back many thousands of Calvinists). Jeremiah was not at fault; nor could St. Francis claim final credit for "his results."


The spiritual battle for hearts and souls is being waged on a scale and height infinitely beyond whatever (good or bad) methods we may bring to the table. Our first and always most important task is to be obedient to our call and to be proper witnesses of Christ. If our Lord and many (if not most) saints were persecuted and killed; we will, at the very least, be personally savaged and attacked. We can expect this; if it is not present, we ought to seriously examine ourselves to see why that is.

We mustn't be naive enough to actually think that Satan and his demons won't put up a vigorous fight against anyone who is effectively sharing and defending God's truth and the fullness of the Catholic faith. We can count on it. It's not peaches and cream and all method and PR and getting folks to like us. Apologetics is ultimately spiritual battle. We can be friendly, nice, charming; all that (and I sure hope we all strive to be that way), but that doesn't nullify the fact that it is, bottom line, a battle (thus, "young guns" is a very apt metaphor indeed!).

* * * 

Devin Rose replied, and I counter-reply:

Thanks for chiming in. I did not intend my portrayal of the positive traits of the young guns to imply a lack of those qualities with you and the other more experienced apologists I mentioned.

On my blog a few weeks ago I tipped my hat to you for engaging in discussion with the more virulently anti-Catholic Protestant apologists. You have continued to engage them for many years, which is a service to people, since it is important work to do but often frustrating and even odious.

You are right that apologetics doesn’t change in its essentials. The arguments we make were put quite well by St. Francis de Sales in the Catholic Controversy four hundred years ago. But we put old wine in new wineskins, addressing the particular issues that are important to our separated brethren today. And each new generation has a different perspective on this, and new voices to add. There are contributors on this site, over a decade my junior, and when I read their posts I realize, I would never have said something in that way–it simply would not have occurred to me given my background, experience, and even my particular “generation” (I’m somewhere between generation X and the “millennials”).

Just time for one more comment. Certainly all of us apologists seek to be systematic, but the Called to Communion guys roadmap takes it, in my opinion, to a new level. The way they designed the articles to build on one another, as well as the quality of the writing and the arguments, is unexcelled in my experience. That is not to take away from your work, mine, or any other apologist’s; it’s simply an admirable strength that they exhibit as a group.

God bless your work for the Kingdom.

I am enjoying the intellectual stimulation (leading me to write so much in reply). Good topic.

I did not intend my portrayal of the positive traits of the young guns to imply a lack of those qualities with you and the other more experienced apologists I mentioned.

You clarified that in your remarks on charity

[he had written previously:

I almost left that part out because it implies that the “older” generation is uncharitable, which is not true at all. Also, many of us (myself included) fall to temptation to be uncharitable or trade punch-for-punch, so it is not an all or nothing kind of thing. Sometimes we do better and other times we do worse.

It might be helpful to say instead that the young guns know how to come across better in blog discussions. To be honest I don’t see many of the older generation engaging in comments on blogs, even though they have blogs.]

and again here, and I gladly accept your report, but I think some of the language used in the article actually does logically imply this, if we take the remarks literally, because you emphasize all this “new” stuff, and talk about new wineskins and so forth; then you said “what’s different about these young guns [?]” and “Something is different here,” and mention three aspects: charity, new media, being systematic. If you say they are “different” in these ways, then that logically goes back to us old guys that you mention earlier, since they have to be “different” from someone or something, and that was the referent. See what I’m saying?

All you would have to do to change the logical thrust would be to say that the new guys are characterized or typified by thus-and-such, without the judgment of “different” (from what came before).

There seems to be some subtle negative insinuation against the “old guard” in other choices of words and metaphors; e.g., “hacked through the tangled jungle of apologetics with machetes” (doesn’t sound like very subtle, fine-tuned apologetic work LOL) and “took part in heated debates . . .” The implication is thus left that newer apologists are vastly different in these respects (which I deny is the case).

Again; you say you didn’t intend to draw this stark contrast. I believe you, but sometimes imprecise language can leave an impression that the writer didn’t intend to convey.

I wholeheartedly agreed with the rest of your comments.



***

18-Part Project: Refutation of William Whitaker's Disputation on Holy Scripture on Sola Scriptura

 
William Whitaker (1548-1595) was a Calvinist Anglican apologist. He attempts to vainly defend sola Scriptura. I will reply in depth to his volume, A Disputation on Holy Scripture: Against the Papists, Especially Bellarmine and Stapleton (primarily, the sola Scriptura sections).

I can't find any anti-Catholics today worthy to debate (they literally don't even know what the word means, and spend ten times more time lobbing insults than in producing rational arguments), so I have to go back to the old days. As a matter of policy and principle, I haven't gotten into an actual, multi-round theological debate with an anti-Catholic for over four years now, save one exceptional occasion when I replied to Jason Engwer for the sake of a friend who was confused by some of the anti-Catholic arguments. As usual, he didn't fully interact with my arguments, by a long shot (ignoring most of them). What else is new with these slanderous polemicists? But I used to go round and round with many of them, and refute their nonsense (see  the many scores of old debates on my Anti-Catholicism web page)

I hope you'll join me for this fun "journey." It'll be similar to my line-by-line replies to Calvin and the important early Lutheran theologian, Martin Chemnitz (one / two / three / four / five), as well as my numerous treatments of Luther. Bring on the best Protestant arguments (not the worst, as we too often see today)!

I've written more about sola Scriptura than any other topic in apologetics (as you can see on my Bible and Tradition web page), and it is always a popular area, and central to the Catholic-Protestant dispute. Authority is the bottom line. My book, Bible Conversations was partially devoted to the subject, and my 501 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura: Is the Bible the Only Infallible Authority? wholly devoted to it. Currently, I am finishing up a radical revision and shorter, much more tightly argued version of that book, in conjunction with my longtime editor, Todd Aglialoro (four of my books), called 100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura, to be published by Catholic Answers (probably this fall). The contract is already signed, so this is a certainty.

I'm ready for some good arguments to interact with from classic Protestant authors, who believed in their doctrines strongly enough to defend them (rather than merely assume them as true, sans any significant argument, like so many Protestants today, or to assume that no one can be certain enough of theological truths to vigorously defend them). Like these "old guys" or not, at least we can respect them that much. They stood for something, and zealously fought for it. There is nothing wrong with placing very high confidence in Scripture: it is only the unbiblical notion of sola Scriptura (that the Bible is the only infallible, binding authority; hence, a denial of this authority in the Church and apostolic tradition) that causes problems.

Here are some of the numerous current anti-Catholic touting of Whitaker's book as the be-all and end-all on the topic:

Bishop James White

One will scan his notes in vain for any reference to any classical works on, say, sola scriptura, such as William Whitaker’s late 16th century classic, Disputations on Holy Scripture, . . . (8-18-10)

Since the Reformation, only a few godly servants of the truth have invested the time and effort necessary to produce for God's people a full-orbed defense of Scriptural sufficiency against those who would subject Scripture to external authorities. William Whitaker was one of those servants, and his work should be carefully studied by all concerned shepherds of Christ's flock. (September 2007)

Matthew D. Schultz

William Whitaker (1547-1595) was an Oxford-trained theologian of significant influence and prestige. One of his most important treatises was Disputations on Holy Scripture (hereafter Disputations), a work that set out to explain and defend the principle of Sola Scriptura over and against the arguments of Rome's foremost apologists. Whitaker's Disputations served not only to influence the formulation of the Westminster Confession of Faith, but continues, due in part to the unchanging nature of the debate, to be an important text in the modern controversies between Catholics and Protestants. . . .

The excellent reputation of Whitaker as a debater and the quality of his Disputations is difficult to deny. . . . even Whitaker's theological enemies considered him to be a formidable, even respectable opponent. . . . Whitaker has incisive analytical skills; his application of razor-sharp logic is demonstrated both in his ability to properly represent his opponents' arguments and in his ability to refute them. He also employs sound reasoning in selecting the strongest forms of his opponents' arguments to refute, having no interest in refuting weak versions and claiming an empty rhetorical victory. Perhaps the most remarkable features of Disputations is its timelessness. (5-20-10)

Pastor David T. King

Ever since I've known him, Pastor David King has been recommending this work as one of the best resources ever on Scripture. (John Bugay: 5-20-10)

Ligonier Ministries (R. C. Sproul)

In this book, Puritan William Whitaker forcefully and effectively deals with objections to the doctrine of sola Scriptura. He addresses issues such as the number of books in the canon, authentic versions of the Bible, as well as Scripture’s authority, clarity, interpretation, and perfection. Many have said that Whitaker so greatly defended the Protestant position that “he cut off the head of his antagonist with his own weapons.” [link]

Reformed Anglicanism Blog

This work will stand alongside Martin Chemnitz's towering work on the Council of Trent. It may tower over Princeton's "Lion," B.B. Warfield, on the subject of Scriptures. Whitaker was a Prayer Book man, Calvinist, and Anglican of the first order magnitude. We believe he's better than Hooker. In any case, this work still should be studied by any Reformed Churchman, especially Anglicans. (1-15-10)

Further Google searching will bear out the continuing very high esteem in which Whitaker is held in Protestant circles. As I said, I like to seek the best of theological opponents, not the worst, so I eagerly look forward to this project. If we can refute the very best defenders of sola Scriptura, where does that leave the false doctrine? Sola Scriptura is, in my opinion, the most biblically bankrupt, barren argument of all in the Protestant arsenal. It is fascinating to watch people so vigorously attempt to defend a hopelessly lost cause (and -- supreme irony -- to pretend that it is actually a biblical doctrine).

Listing of the 18 Replies

Antidote to William Whitaker's Sola Scriptura Arguments, Part 1: Dedication and Preface

Part 2: Views of Tertullian, St. John Chrysostom, and St. Augustine / St. Athanasius on the Old Testament Canon

Part 3: Relation of Church and Scripture, and the Practical Necessity of an Authoritatively Declared Canon

Part 4: Is Scripture Completely Self-Authenticating and Self-Evidently Inspired in All its Books, so that Each Individual Can Discover the Canon in Isolation from Church Pronouncements?

Part 5: The Perspicuity (Clearness) of Scripture: Introductory Considerations

Part 6: The Perspicuity (Clearness) of Scripture: Bellarmine's Four Scriptural Disproofs and Whitaker's Woefully Inadequate Rebuttals Examined

Part 7: Church Fathers on the Rule of Faith / Prooftext for Perspicuity (Eisegesis of Deuteronomy 30:11-14) Refuted from Scripture

Part 8: Biblical Refutation of Whitaker's Eisegetical "Prooftexts" for Perspicuity from the Scriptural Metaphor of "Light"

Part 9: "Plain" Gospel and Easily Understood Biblical Christology?

Part 10: Interpretation of Scripture: Typology and Analogies to Moses, Joshua, and the Judges

Part 11: Interpretation of Scripture: Moses' Seat, Pharisaical Authority, the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15), and Whitaker's Irrational, Radically Individualist Subjectivism

Part 12: Church Councils, St. Irenaeus' Rule of Faith, and St. John Chrysostom on St. Peter and His Successors

Part 13: More Logically Circular Subjectivism and "Co-Opting" the Holy Spirit as the Supposed "Final Judge" for All Interpretation Disputes

Part 14: The Nature of Tradition(s), the Immaculate Conception; Gregory the Great and Nicaea II on Images

Part 15: Is All of Jesus' Teaching and Apostolic Tradition in Scripture? / Authoritative "Necessary" Extra-Biblical Tradition

Part 16: The Protestant Perspective on the Church Fathers

Part 17: Oral Tradition / Desperate Anti-Traditional Exegetical Arguments / St. John Chrysostom on Tradition / Whitaker's Near-Bibliolatry

Part 18: Further Rebuttals of Whitaker's Absurd Attempted Biblical Arguments Against Apostolic Tradition or Any Tradition Whatsoever



***

Biblical Evidence for Submission to Church Authority and Apostolic Tradition / Biblical Condemnation of the Rebellion of the Protestant Revolt

 Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15)

Prohibition of the Removal of Ancient Landmarks

Deuteronomy 19:14 (RSV, as throughout) In the inheritance which you will hold in the land that the LORD your God gives you to possess, you shall not remove your neighbor's landmark, which the men of old have set.

Deuteronomy  27:17 Cursed be he who removes his neighbor's landmark.. . .

Job 24:2 Men remove landmarks; they seize flocks and pasture them.

Proverbs 22:28 Remove not the ancient landmark which your fathers have set.

Proverbs 23:10 Do not remove an ancient landmark or enter the fields of the fatherless;

Hosea 5:10 The princes of Judah have become like those who remove the landmark; upon them I will pour out my wrath like water.

Submission to Ecclesiastical Authority (Even if Corrupt) and Apostolic Tradition

Matthew 18:17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

Matthew 23:1-3 Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, [2] "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; [3] so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.

Acts 16:4 As they went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem.

Acts 23:2-5 And the high priest Anani'as commanded those who stood by him to strike him on the mouth. [3] Then Paul said to him, "God shall strike you, you whitewashed wall! Are you sitting to judge me according to the law, and yet contrary to the law you order me to be struck?" [4] Those who stood by said, "Would you revile God's high priest?" [5] And Paul said, "I did not know, brethren, that he was the high priest; for it is written, `You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.'"

Romans 8:7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God's law, indeed it cannot;

1 Corinthians 11:2 I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

The Church as the Foundation of Theological Truth and Therefore, the Necessity of Adhering to Her Teachings

1 Timothy 3:15 . . . the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. 

Romans 2:8  but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury.

Galatians 5:7 You were running well; who hindered you from obeying the truth?

1 Timothy 4:3 . . . those who believe and know the truth.

2 Timothy 1:13-14 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.

2 Timothy 2:24-25 And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kindly to every one, an apt teacher, forbearing, [25] correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant that they will repent and come to know the truth,

2 Timothy 3:7-8 who will listen to anybody and can never arrive at a knowledge of the truth. [8] As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith;

2 Timothy 4:3-4 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, [4] and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths.

1 Peter 1:22 Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere love of the brethren, love one another earnestly from the heart.(cf. 2 Pet 1:12)

1 John 3:19 By this we shall know that we are of the truth, and reassure our hearts before him (cf. 1:6; 2:21; 4:6)

2 John 1:4 I rejoiced greatly to find some of your children following the truth, just as we have been commanded by the Father.(cf. 3 John 1:1-4, 8, 12)

Obedience to the Church and Her Leaders

Acts 6:7 And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were obedient to the faith.

Romans 6:17 But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed,

2 Corinthians 2:9 For this is why I wrote, that I might test you and know whether you are obedient in everything.

Philippians 2:12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling;

2 Thessalonians 3:14 If any one refuses to obey what we say in this letter, note that man, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed. (cf. 1:8)

Hebrews 13:17 Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you.

1 Peter 4:17 For the time has come for judgment to begin with the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God?

Rebuke and Rule of Church Authorities

1 Timothy 5:17 Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching;

Titus 1:13-14 . . . Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, [14] instead of giving heed to Jewish myths or to commands of men who reject the truth.

Titus 2:15 Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you.

Hebrews 13:7 Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God; consider the outcome of their life, and imitate their faith.

The Evil of Schism, Division, and Denominationalism

Matthew 12:25 . . . Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand

John 10:16 . . . So there shall be one flock, one shepherd.

John 17:20-23 I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me.

Acts 4:32 Now the company of those who believed were of one heart and soul, . . .

Romans 2:8 but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury.

Romans 16:17 I appeal to you, brethren, to take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them. (cf. 13:13)

1 Corinthians 1:10-13 I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. For it has been reported to me by Chlo'e’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brethren. What I mean is that each one of you says, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apol'los,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

1 Corinthians 3:3-4 . . . For while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh, and behaving like ordinary men? For when one says, “I belong to Paul,” and another, “I belong to Apol'los,” are you not merely men?

1 Corinthians 10:17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.

1 Corinthians 11:16-19 If any one is disposed to be contentious, we recognize no other practice, nor do the churches of God. But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. For, in the first place, when you assemble as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and I partly believe it, for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.


2 Corinthians 12:20 For I fear that perhaps I may come and find you not what I wish, and that you may find me not what you wish; that perhaps there may be quarreling, jealousy, anger, selfishness, slander, gossip, conceit, and disorder.

Galatians 5:19-20 Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, party spirit,

Ephesians 4:1-5 I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all lowliness and meekness, with patience, forbearing one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, one baptism,

Philippians 1:27 Only let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of you that you stand firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel,

Philippians 2:2 complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind.

1 Timothy 6:3-5 If any one teaches otherwise and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching which accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit, he knows nothing; he has a morbid craving for controversy and for disputes about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, base suspicions, and wrangling among men who are depraved in mind and bereft of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain. (cf. 2 Tim 2:23)

Titus 3:9-11 But avoid stupid controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels over the law, for they are unprofitable and futile. As for a man who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned. (cf. Jas 3:16)

2 Peter 2:1-2 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their licentiousness, and because of them the way of truth will be reviled.


***

Explicit Biblical Evidence for the Veneration of Angels and Men as Direct Representatives of God

.
.

  

 Captain of the Lord's Host, Franz Stuck, 1889

Man or Men

Genesis 18:1-4, 22 (RSV) And the LORD appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre, as he sat at the door of his tent in the heat of the day. [2] He lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, three men stood in front of him. When he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them, and bowed himself [shachah] to the earth, [3] and said, "My lord, if I have found favor in your sight, do not pass by your servant. [4] Let a little water be brought, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree, . . . [22] So the men turned from there, and went toward Sodom; but Abraham still stood before the LORD.

[the text in-between goes back and forth, referring to "men" or "they" or "them" (18:9, 16) and "The LORD" or first-person address from God (18:10, 13-14, 17-21) interchangeably, for the same phenomenon and personal / physical / verbal encounter]

Joshua 5:13-15 When Joshua was by Jericho, he lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, a man stood before him with his drawn sword in his hand; and Joshua went to him and said to him, "Are you for us, or for our adversaries?" [14] And he said, "No; but as commander of the army of the LORD I have now come." And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and worshiped [shachah], and said to him, "What does my lord bid his servant?" [15] And the commander of the LORD's army said to Joshua, "Put off your shoes from your feet; for the place where you stand is holy." And Joshua did so.

[a "man" is equated with God also in Genesis 32:24, 30] 

Angels

Exodus 3:2-6 And the angel of the LORD appeared to him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush; and he looked, and lo, the bush was burning, yet it was not consumed. [3] And Moses said, "I will turn aside and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt." [4] When the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called to him out of the bush, "Moses, Moses!" And he said, "Here am I." [5] Then he said, "Do not come near; put off your shoes from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground." [6] And he said, "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God.

Numbers 22:31 Then the LORD opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of the LORD standing in the way, with his drawn sword in his hand; and he bowed his head, and fell on his face.

["angel of the Lord" appears repeatedly in the context: Num 22:22-27, 32, 34-35] 

Judges 6:12-16, 20-23 And the angel of the LORD appeared to him and said to him, "The LORD is with you, you mighty man of valor." [13] And Gideon said to him, "Pray, sir, if the LORD is with us, why then has all this befallen us? And where are all his wonderful deeds which our fathers recounted to us, saying, `Did not the LORD bring us up from Egypt?' But now the LORD has cast us off, and given us into the hand of Mid'ian." [14] And the LORD turned to him and said, "Go in this might of yours and deliver Israel from the hand of Mid'ian; do not I send you?" [15] And he said to him, "Pray, Lord, how can I deliver Israel? Behold, my clan is the weakest in Manas'seh, and I am the least in my family." [16] And the LORD said to him, "But I will be with you, and you shall smite the Mid'ianites as one man.". . . [20] And the angel of God said to him, "Take the meat and the unleavened cakes, and put them on this rock, and pour the broth over them." And he did so. [21] Then the angel of the LORD reached out the tip of the staff that was in his hand, and touched the meat and the unleavened cakes; and there sprang up fire from the rock and consumed the flesh and the unleavened cakes; and the angel of the LORD vanished from his sight. [22] Then Gideon perceived that he was the angel of the LORD; and Gideon said, "Alas, O Lord GOD! For now I have seen the angel of the LORD face to face." [23] But the LORD said to him, "Peace be to you; do not fear, you shall not die."

Judges 13:15-22 Mano'ah said to the angel of the LORD, "Pray, let us detain you, and prepare a kid for you." [16] And the angel of the LORD said to Mano'ah, "If you detain me, I will not eat of your food; but if you make ready a burnt offering, then offer it to the LORD." (For Mano'ah did not know that he was the angel of the LORD.) [17] And Mano'ah said to the angel of the LORD, "What is your name, so that, when your words come true, we may honor you?" [18] And the angel of the LORD said to him, "Why do you ask my name, seeing it is wonderful?" [19] So Mano'ah took the kid with the cereal offering, and offered it upon the rock to the LORD, to him who works wonders. [20] And when the flame went up toward heaven from the altar, the angel of the LORD ascended in the flame of the altar while Mano'ah and his wife looked on; and they fell on their faces to the ground. [21] The angel of the LORD appeared no more to Mano'ah and to his wife. Then Mano'ah knew that he was the angel of the LORD. [22] And Mano'ah said to his wife, "We shall surely die, for we have seen God."

[this passage is remarkable in that it goes back and forth between God (13:16, 19, 22) and the angel of the Lord (or of God) as His direct representative (13:15-18, 20-21 and in the larger passage, 13:3, 6, 9, 13). The angel is honored (v. 17), they fall on their faces to worship (v. 20) and at length the angel is equated with God as His visible manifestation (v. 22). But the difference between the angel and God is highlighted by the angel being described as a "man of God" (13:6, 8) and "the man" (13:10-11)]


[the angel of the Lord is also equated with God (theophany) in Gen 31:11-13; Jud 2:1; but differentiated from God as well (representative): 2 Sam 24:16; 1 Ki 19:6-7; 2 Ki 19:35; Dan 3:25, 28; 6:23; Zech 1:8-14]

Adoration / worship of God, over against veneration or reverence or honor shown towards angels and men as God's representatives, is illustrated in several passages:

Acts 10:25-26 When Peter entered, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped [proskuneo] him. [26] But Peter lifted him up, saying, "Stand up; I too am a man."

Romans 1:25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped [sebazomai] and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen.

Colossians 2:18 Let no one disqualify you, insisting on self-abasement and worship [threskia] of angels, taking his stand on visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind,

Revelation 22:8-9 I John am he who heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw them, I fell down to worship [proskuneo] at the feet of the angel who showed them to me; [9] but he said to me, "You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brethren the prophets, and with those who keep the words of this book. Worship [proskuneo] God."

[At Lystra, after St. Paul healed a man, the crowds though he was Hermes, and Barnabas, Zeus, and wanted to offer sacrifice (Acts 14:8-18), but Paul dissuaded them, saying, "We also are men, of like nature with you" (14:15)]

* * * * *

The Bible, thus, is quite clear: there is an occasional use of angels or men as direct representatives of God, and they are "worshiped" only insofar as they represent God, as a visual image or object, through whom God is working and communicating.  But veneration is strictly separated from the adoration due to God alone. Everything has to be considered together, as a whole.

All of this explicit biblical evidence is precisely in line with what the Catholic Church teaches. It is the outright prohibition of all veneration and honor of creatures whatever in most forms of Protestantism that is a grossly unbiblical notion.

Moreover, "worship" is used in a wider (literary) sense of showing reverence or obeisance to men of authority (in this instance, a king), in 1 Chronicles 29:20: "And David said to all the congregation, Now bless the LORD your God. And all the congregation blessed the LORD God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped [shachah] the LORD, and the king" (KJV). RSV has: "worshiped the LORD, and did obeisance to the king," but it is one Hebrew word applied to both.


***

Ridiculous Anti-Catholic Blaming of Catholic Apologists for Protestant Mistakes or Honest Scholarship, With Regard to Luther's View of the Canon

It's simply amazing, the amount of misinformation, disinformation and propaganda anti-Catholics dishes out. They make Baghdad Bob (remember that clown?) look like Abraham Lincoln. I would have thought that my previous copiously documented examination of this nonsense (Anti-Catholic "Luther / Esther / Canon" Polemics and Attempts to Solely Blame Catholics for a Questionable Luther Citation . . .) had laid to rest many of these bogus allegations.

Anti-Catholics are so used to lying about and distorting anything that Catholic apologists do that they literally could no sooner stop this than Niagara Falls could reverse its course.

Luther certainly did judge books of the Bible (which is technically a different notion from which books he left in his canon in his own Bible), solely on his own arbitrary, self-proclaimed, pseudo-prophetic "authority." It's not just us Catholics (oops, "Romanists") who think this, but even some Lutherans and other Protestants: some of whom are troubled by Luther's cavalier attitude towards the Bible.
I documented this almost seven years ago now, in my paper, Luther's Outrageous Assertions About Certain Biblical Books. For example, non-Catholic Luther and "Reformation" scholar Preserved Smith wrote (this and other sources can be found in the aforementioned paper):

. . . few of his followers have ever interpreted, commented on, and criticized the Bible with the freedom habitual to him. The books he judged according as they appealed to his own subjective nature, . . .

Lutheran Mark F. Bartling (WELS), stated:

It must be admitted that Luther did develop a personal criterion of canonicity that took its place along side of apostolicity and universality (those books unanimously accepted by the early church, homologoumena) . . . It was, of all people, Carlstadt who condemned Luther for this criterion. Carlstadt said: "One must appeal either to known apostolic authorship or to universal historical acceptance as to the test of a book’s canonicity, not to internal doctrinal considerations." [De Canonicis Scripturis libellus, Wittenberg, 1520, p. 50]. This position of Carlstadt was also the position of Martin Chemnitz and of C. F. W. Walther [Compendium Theologiae Positivae, Vol. I. p. 149]. 

Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901), the great biblical scholar, was equally direct in his disagreement with Luther:

No Church could rest on a theory which makes private feeling the supreme authority as to doctrine and the source of doctrine. As a natural consequence the later Lutherans abandoned the teaching of their great master on the written Word.

Moral of the story: when Catholics say things like I did, in this respect, we are not saying anything that many Protestant (including Lutheran) or secularist critics of Luther (Carlstadt, Chemnitz, Walther, Smith, Westcott et al) have not already said. But when we do it, it is supposedly bad research and "propaganda." When a Protestant says the same thing, it is profound truth. Orwellian doublespeak . . . The Catholic is always wrong and the Protestant always right, even when they agree with each other. I agree: it makes no rational sense. Yet this is how anti-Catholic polemicists "reason." 

Now, when I first converted to Catholicism in 1991 and did some critical writing about Luther, I had at my disposal far fewer sources and resources than I have now. I wasn't on the Internet yet (not for another five years, and six till I had my own website). I had one Catholic book about Luther of my own (the notorious, but not devil incarnate, Patrick O'Hare) and photocopies or handwritten notes from mostly two other early 20th century Catholic sources (Grisar and Janssen) from library research. Much of my earliest research utilizes these three sources. I also had Roland Bainton and some Protestant biographies of Luther as well. I had read Bainton's famous Here I Stand in 1984.

My first paper on Luther dates from 1991. Needless to say, I have learned a great deal about Luther since that time (anyone can see how much I have written about him, including now a book) and have refined many of my opinions, as I learned more and more. I systematically purged virtually all references to O'Hare's citations from my papers way back in 2002.

I have modified many opinions in particulars, about Luther. I continue to develop my beliefs about him on an ongoing basis, and remove old stuff. One of my old papers on the topic was entitled, Martin Luther: Beyond Mythology to Historical Fact. (the original URL can be traced on Internet Archive). The first version was dated 14 January 1991. There was a "5th Revised Edition" dated 11 November 2002. In the fifth edition, all the material on the biblical canon had been removed. The third edition of 18 January 2000 still contained it, without either attribution or URL. So did the fourth edition of 27 January 2002. But since November 2002, these quotes have not been on my website, in this paper.

The last time the paper was online, according to Internet Archive, was 11 October 2003, so it's been gone almost eight years. Sometime between then and 6 December 2003 it was voluntarily removed as outdated (which is not the same as discredited) research. It never made it to my blog, because that was begun in 2004. When we look at  the particulars anti-Catholics presents to make their case against a 20-year-old paper of mine, they uniformly fail to do so, since they all go back to Protestant sources, in terms of origin in English, and continued use.

Obviously, then, I was refining the paper as I learned more things. Most people would think that is a good and normal thing in legitimate research and inquiry (since all noted researchers and authors make revisions). In this ancient paper of mine, I cited O'Hare at length:

Of the Pentateuch he says: 'We have no wish either to see or hear Moses. Job . . . is merely the argument of a fable . . . Ecclesiastes ought to have been more complete. There is too much incoherent matter in it . . . Solomon did not, therefore, write this book . . . The book of Esther I toss into the Elbe. I am such an enemy to the book of Esther that I wish it did not exist, for it Judaizes too much and has in it a great deal of heathenish naughtiness . . . The history of Jonah is so monstrous that it is absolutely incredible . . .

O'Hare was not the original source of these things (in English).  I already documented in my previous paper  that the source of this material in English (far as I could determine) was Sir William Hamilton: a Scottish Protestant philosopher, in 1834. He was utilizing and translating the standard edition of Luther's Works in the18th century (the state of the art at that time): Johann Georg Walch (24 volumes: Halle: 1740-1753). Walch in turn cited the Aurifaber version of Table-Talk, dating from 1566.

Those three Protestant men are the originators of this material, not the Catholic O'Hare, who was writing in 1916 and utilizing the statements of Hamilton. Thus, O'Hare and other evil, wicked, wascally "Romanists cannot be uniquely blamed for this, as if it is poor research and a polemical motivation alone that caused them to pull things out of thin air in the effort to defame Martin Luther. It's just not so. O'Hare wasn't solely at fault. It wasn't simply "propaganda." It had a quite legitimate, scholarly  Protestant textual history.

If O'Hare was a propagandist by using these words (and I myself by using his, which are Walch's translated into English), then so were Hamilton and Walch and Aurifaber. But anti-Catholic critics merely want to bash O'Hare and the embodiment of evil and bad research, Dave Armstrong. O'Hare does indeed often engage in empty "anti-Luther" polemics and lousy research, which is why I don't use him anymore, but this instance is not an example of it.

In the previous paper I already made a lengthy comparison of Hamilton's section about Luther and the canon (translated from Walch, who cited Luther friend Aurifaber), and O'Hare's. Here I'll do it line-by-line (using O'Hare portions that I cited in my old Luther paper):

[Catholic] O'Hare, 1916: Job . . . is merely the argument of a fable . . .
[Protestant] Hamilton, 1834:  Job spake not, therefore, as it stands written in his book, but hath had such cogitations . . . It is a sheer argumentum fabulae. . . .

[many Protestants (usually liberals who were biblical skeptics) picked this up -- so we observe in a Google Books search -- and noted that Luther regarded the book of Job as a fable or mere dramatic story without factual basis; see also a general Google search along these lines]

O'Hare, 1916: Ecclesiastes ought to have been more complete. There is too much incoherent matter in it . . . Solomon did not, therefore, write this book . . .
Hamilton, 1834: This book (Ecclesiastes) ought to have been more full; there is too much of broken matter in it; it has neither boots nor spurs, but rides only in socks, as I myself when in the cloister . . . Solomon hath not therefore written this book 

O'Hare, 1916: The book of Esther I toss into the Elbe. I am such an enemy to the book of Esther that I wish it did not exist, for it Judaizes too much and has in it a great deal of heathenish naughtiness . . .
Hamilton, 1834: The book of Esther, I toss into the Elbe." [Ib.] ["And when the Doctor was correcting the second book of Maccabees, he said: --] . . . I am so an enemy to the book of Esther, that I would it did not exist; for it Judaizes too much, and hath in it a great deal of heathenish naughtiness. 

O'Hare, 1916: The history of Jonah is so monstrous that it is absolutely incredible . . .
Hamilton, 1834: The history of Jonah is so monstrous, that it is absolutely incredible.

[a Google Books search of this phrase reveals that many Protestants cited it throughout the 19th century: several noting that it came from the Protestant Hamilton. It was in common use before O'Hare was even born]

It wasn't only the Catholic O'Hare citing or paraphrasing these sections from Hamilton: not by a long shot. I have linked above to examples found in Google Books searches. Secularist Luther scholar Preserved Smith also did, just five years before O'Hare:

. . . he declared Job to be an allegory; Jonah was so childish that he was almost inclined to laugh at it; the books of Kings were "a thousand paces ahead of Chronicles and more to be believed." “Ecclesiastes has neither boots nor spurs, but rides in socks, as I did when I was in the cloister."

(The Life and Letters of Martin Luther, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1911, 268)

The only section that couldn't be traced back to Hamilton was "We have no wish either to see or hear Moses." Very well, then; I did a search on Google Books. Not much turned up. All O'Hare stated was, "Of the Pentateuch he says: 'We have no wish either to see or hear Moses.'" I agree that this is inadequate, because it has no context at all and could easily be misinterpreted (especially knowing Luther and his frequent rhetorical exaggerations and oft-used sarcastic, non-literal mode of argumentation). On the other hand, O'Hare has not interpreted it himself. In any event, the words themselves do exist in Luther, and in that sense, this is not "propaganda" per se, but the reporting of a fact.

Luther, in his treatise, Against The Heavenly Prophets In The Matter Of Images And Sacraments," wrote (my bolding):

Now then, let us get to the bottom of it all and say that these teachers of sin and Mosaic prophets are not to confuse us with Moses. We don’t want to see or hear Moses. How do you like that, my dear rebels? We say further, that all such Mosaic teachers deny the gospel, banish Christ, and annul the whole New Testament. I now speak as a Christian for Christians. For Moses is given to the Jewish people alone, and does not concern us Gentiles and Christians. We have our gospel and New Testament. If they can prove from them that images must be put away, we will gladly follow them. If they, however, through Moses would make us Jews, we will not endure it.

(Luther's Works, Vol. 40, p. 92)

But this dates from after 1955, and wasn't available to O'Hare. Moreover, in  Luther Vindicated by Charles Hastings Collette, the author provides extensive context. He states:

There is a passage quoted by Dr. McCave, as reported in his Lecture in The Midland Counties Express, as follows :—"It was Luther who said of the Pentateuch 'We neither wish to see nor hear this Moses; he is master of all hangmen, and no one can surpass him when there is a question of terrifying, torturing, or tyrannizing.' " I have utterly failed to trace this passage.

Collette's book was published in 1884, and he was a Protestant. This could very well be O'Hare's source (the reference to "the Pentateuch" strongly suggests it), in which case again it is a matter of O'Hare citing a Protestant, who is not hostile to Luther at all; a book, in fact, where he is expressly defended. "Dr. McCave" appears to be Canon James McCave, D.D.: a Catholic; Collette is not necessarily agreeing with what he cited, and couldn't trace it. Thus we have:

[Catholic] O'Hare, 1916: Of the Pentateuch he says: 'We have no wish either to see or hear Moses.'
[Protestant] Collette, 1884 (citing Catholic McCave):  It was Luther who said of the Pentateuch 'We neither wish to see nor hear this Moses . . .'

According to Walch, Luther thought the book of Job was a "fable." This came right from him, as Hamilton stated. According to Preserved Smith (writing in 1911), he thought it was "allegory."

O'Hare drew directly from the Protestant Hamilton, who translated into English the official Luther compiler Walch, who included Table-Talk from Luther contemporary and personal secretary Aurifaber. This is O'Hare's fault that he dared to trust Protestants for accurately reporting the words of their hero Luther? And it's our fault for citing him, doing so? As if anti-Catholics have never utilized older pro-Luther research (they do all the time) and in so doing, trusted it implicitly for accuracy?
Isn't Catholic apologetics fun? This is the sort of garbage we hear from our anti-Catholic intellectual giants on a weekly, sometimes daily, basis: pathetic tactics from historically-challenged fools who are unable to rationally defend their viewpoints.



***

Anti-Catholic Calvinist Steve Hays: Lies, Slanderous Mockery, Sophistry, Rationalization of Grave Sexual Sins: All in a Day's Work, and in the Name of Christ

[Steve Hays' words will be in blue]

Steve Hays runs the large blog Triablogue. He is one of the most atrocious examples of a Christian apologist to be found online today. It's people like this who give my profession a bad name (I am an apologist myself, after all, so I can get lumped in with pathetic examples of apologists like Steve).

The latest nonsense comes in the aftermath of a dispute where I actually sided in part with Steve Hays, over against a fellow Catholic apologist and a Catholic woman and amateur apologist online, who has followed my work for some time (hence, received my amiable correction). It was implied that he wasn't a Christian, and I said he was (though assuredly a pathetic public example of one: giving Christianity a bad name, as well as apologetics). Then some claims were made that he made an illegitimate reductio ad absurdum argument in reply to what he was being charged with. I disagreed and said his use was quite legitimate, logically and ethically. I defended him in this way because he happened to be right, and his accusers wrong, in these particulars of disputational method.

The woman later apologized, in a great display of humility and Christian charity. That was blown off by Steve and not acknowledged, in two mocking posts (one / two). After I had defended his argument and right to be called a Christian, he had to (inevitably, with him) somehow question my motivation (since I am Attila the Hun and Vlad the Impaler all wrapped into one, in his eyes), so he wrote: "Armstrong’s contribution would have been preferable had he not turned this into yet another pretext for self-aggrandizement. But by hogging the limelight, his intervention now looks purely opportunistic."

I always have to be wrong, simply because the man despises me, and because I defend Holy Mother Church and Catholic doctrine. This is par for the course with all of the most active anti-Catholic Protestant apologists.

Hays is not only a first-rate sophist ("give the devil his due": he is very good at a bad thing), but also a world-class mocker, in the very worst, most obnoxious sense of that term. It's his method of choice now, having apparently tired of seriously slanderous insulting rhetoric. Calling folks "actually evil" (4-13-09) or of "evil character" (1-29-10) or "schizophrenic" and characterized by "wild mood swings" and "emotionally unstable" (4-18-10), and in one classic outburst on 7-16-09: "hypersensitive, paranoid, an ego-maniac, narcissistic, with a martyr and persecution complex . . . self-obsessive . . . self-idolater. . . . singular, autobiographical personality cult" or "a stalwart enemy of the faith. . . . no better than Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens" (1-28-10) -- all of which was directed towards yours truly -- got old, and so now he is trying to use humor to get across his ultra-irrational contempt, and to smear my name and integrity in any, every conceivable fashion that occurs to his oh-so-fertile brain.

Hence, recently, after his fallacious and sophistical arguments were dismantled in a "discussion" about the former Catholicism of the conservative commentator and author Dinesh D'Souza, Hays stepped up his usual mockery, with profound posts at my expense (complete with lots of photos!): "The Dave Armstrong Photo Gallery" (7-28-11), "Split-personality Narcissist" (8-3-11): where I was delightfully described as a "bipolar solipsist", and "Prima Donna" (8-24-11), complete with picture of a ballerina, where he states: "I'll be the first to concede that Dave is not a team player. By definition, a prima donna can't be a team player. Prima donnas don't play team sports." Then we have the follow-up, "Crowd Control" (8-24-11), with this passage-for-the-ages:

. . . Armstrong is so fond of talking about himself that whenever he goes to confession, you have a line stretching all around the block as other parishioners wait their turn while Armstrong updates his priest on the very latest installments in the story of Dave. The police require advance notification to erect barricades and reroute traffic. Concession stands are wheeled in to feed the waiting parishioners. Tents are set up for overnighters. Trapped in the Confessional with the interminable Dave-a-thon, the famished priest must order delivery pizza on his cellphone.

How could I possibly "refute" that, huh?

Now, I figured I could have some fun with the "team player" bit, and so I went into the combox for "Prima Donna" and wrote:

We certainly know that you aren't a team player, Steve, since you defend masturbation so passionately (no pun intended). (8-24-11)

One Dominic Bnonn Tennant (fellow rabid anti-Catholic) replied:

Wow, much as I laughed out loud at that comment, I hope you're going to confess it to your priest. (8-24-11)

I shot back:

Why in the world would I have to confess telling the truth? It was a joke, and all I said, substantively (the serious point underlying the witty remark), was that he defended it, not that he did it himself: a fact that is indisputable. Look it up. (8-24-11)

Hays does do this, as I have documented twice (one / two). Hays has written (it's still on his site now):

I don’t think that Christians should go around guilt-ridden if they engage in this practice. On the face of it, this seems like a natural sexual safety value for single men—especially younger men in their sexual prime. Like learning how to walk or perform other athletic activities, this form of sexual experience and physical experimentation may train an unmarried young man in attaining some degree of mental and muscular control so that he is not a total novice on his wedding night. . . . I can’t say absolutely if it is right or wrong, but I tend to deem it permissible under some circumstances.

("Too hot to handle - 2", 7-15-04)

But us poor "Romanists" must always be conscious in bigoted anti-Catholic environments, that however much we are mocked, we aren't ever allowed to joke back or have a sense of humor, even when it is perfectly ethical and understandable to do so. That's a naughty no-no. As I explained, I was joking, yet it had a serious underlying point: Hays does actually wink at masturbation and at the very least takes a lax view on it, and compromises. It's the classic tendency of the liberalization of traditional sexuality within Christian circles, that we have seen for at least a century now. But I am not allowed to joke, and because I am so despised in Hays' circles of know-nothing anti-Catholic cronies, based on his years of mockery and slander (what else would people think, who follow him?), I receive back a reply like the following, from Dominic Bnonn Tennant:

I see that reports of your willful obtuseness and self-justification are not exaggerated. (8-24-11)

No attempt to actually interact with the claim that I made: that Hays defends masturbation . . .; rather the immediate personal insult, with the obligatory swipe at my supposed unsavory interior motivations. So I came back with this remark:

Right. Hays defends masturbation. If you can't see that, then I am talking to the wind as usual around here. Be well. (8-24-11)

And Hays himself chimes in with the good old standby , when no rational answer is forthcoming: the catholic sex scandal:

Armstrong defends institutional pederasty. (8-25-11)

Ally Matthew D. Schultz enters in at this point, delightfully supporting by personal example the long stereotype of the humorless Calvinist:

I wonder why Dave so regularly raises the issue of masturbation. It clearly wasn't the subject of this post. (8-25-11)

Yes. The "subject" of the post was that I was a "prima donna": like that is to be regarded as a serious topic? LOL But I don't dare joke about it and make a wisecrack about Hays' defenses of masturbation! Then I made a serious reply:

You're the one defending grave sexual sin, Steve, not I. I have never countenanced sexual abuse from priests. I condemn it wholeheartedly as an abomination and an outrage, as my Church did.

[see the lengthy statement on my "Catholic Scandals" page and my posts collecting many articles about it (one / two) ]

There is just as much (usually more) abuse, statistically, among Protestant clergy or any other large institution, as I have documented more than once. [one / two]

But you sit there and defend what has always been regarded as grave sin, by Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, until recently. Luther doesn't defend it,

[Here's what Martin Luther wrote about Onan and his practice of contraception that is the same in essence as masturbation (ejaculation deliberately separated from any possibility of conception):

Onan must have been a malicious and incorrigible scoundrel. This is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a Sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed . . . He was inflamed with the basest spite and hatred . . . Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore God punished him . . . That worthless fellow . . . preferred polluting himself with a most disgraceful sin to raising up offspring for his brother.

(Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 38-44; 1544; Luther's Works, 7, 20-21) ]

 Calvin doesn't; 

[Here's what John Calvin wrote about Onan, in his Commentary on Genesis:

I will contend myself with briefly mentioning this, as far as the sense of shame allows to discuss it. It is a horrible thing to pour out seed besides the intercourse of man and woman. Deliberately avoiding the intercourse, so that the seed drops on the ground, is double horrible. For this means that one quenches the hope of his family, and kills the son, which could be expected, before he is born. This wickedness is now as severely as is possible condemned by the Spirit, through Moses, that Onan, as it were, through a violent and untimely birth, tore away the seed of his brother out the womb, and as cruel as shamefully has thrown on the earth. Moreover he thus has, as much as was in his power, tried to destroy a part of the human race. When a woman in some way drives away the seed out the womb, through aids, then this is rightly seen as an unforgivable crime. Onan was guilty of a similar crime, by defiling the earth with his seed, so that Tamar would not receive a future inheritor. ]

 most historical Protestants have not [folks like, e.g., C. S. Lewis and John Wesley]. But you do.

You can lie all you want about myself, about my church, mock away and make an ass of yourself, and be a reprehensible example of a follower of Jesus Christ. You only hurt yourself. You're not harming my work at all: it is thriving more than ever, with two new book contracts in the works, etc. (8-25-11)

Without missing a beat, Steve "Whopper" Hays (you can see the basis of the richly-earned nickname by now) promptly put up another post in response, where he assumes the false premise (that sexual abuse is sanctioned at the highest level of the Church, and that individual sin is somehow the fault of the entire Church) and quixotically proceeds with his irrelevant analogy:

On weekends, Dave is a Green Peace activist condemning water pollution downstream. During the week, Dave is employed by the factory further upstream that contaminates the water. Dave the loyal company spokesman stoutly defends the polluting factory while Dave the volunteer protester roundly condemns the pollution.

Then he did his usual obfuscation, obscurantism, and sophistry in a further reply in the latest combox thread (8-25-11) -- my interjections in brackets:

When you have no argument, beg the question. [I have documented above how he defends or winks at masturbation] Are you claiming that Evangelical pastors sodomize underage boys at the same rate as Catholic priests? [see the statistics in the two links I listed above, for sexual mischief among non-Catholic clergy. Sexual abuse is a huge problem in society-at-large] When you don’t have an argument, quote tradition.[opposition to masturbation and the related sin, contraception, historically, is a fact, among all Christian groups. I cited as examples, above, Luther, Calvin, Lewis, and Wesley] . . . Since you’re not Lutheran, that’s [citing Luther's opposition] a disingenuous appeal. [it is absolutely irrelevant what I believe, in discussion of known historical facts: folks' positions on this issue] Since you’re not Reformed, that’s [citing Calvin's opposition] a disingenuous appeal. [is Steve truly this dense, to not get this?] You’re resorting to the same peer pressure that liberals and atheists deploy to bully the masses into accepting global warming or naturalistic evolution.[Right. Rather, I am merely noting what all types of Christians have held about sexual morality, until very recently] I’ve never lied about you or your church. However, that raises a striking conundrum: If I lie about a liar like you, or if I lie about your lying denomination, does that double negation mean I’m telling the truth? [its own refutation . . .] As P. T. Barnum said, "There's a sucker born every minute." I see you share his business ethic. [his self-refuting "reply" to my mentioning that my work is thriving despite his relentless attacks upon it]

There is no rational discussion with this guy. I've known that for several years now. This is a prime example of why I refuse to engage in an actual back-and-forth dialogue with anti-Catholics anymore, and have not for over four years now. No true discussion is possible. It's literally impossible. It never is possible when extreme hostility is in play. It's like the difference between an angry quarrel with a spouse, with one party in a rage, and a calm, loving, amiable, pleasant mutually respectful discussion with a spouse. It's like night and day.

But on occasion I like to document and expose for everyone to see, the sort of garbage and ultra-irrational slander and tomfoolery that characterizes anti-Catholic "thinking" online today. Is this the sort of person -- a man who "argues" in such a fashion -- who would make Christianity appealing to you if you were an atheist, or Calvinist Christianity look like a great option to you if you haven't decided what Christian communion has the most truth, or the fullness of truth (as we Catholics say about our Church)?

I utterly despise and detest the methodology that Hays uses and several things that he defends. I don't despise him as a person. By exposing his unethical, shameful tactics, which sadly typify anti-Catholic methodology, then indirectly I am showing that there is a much better way than this rotgut, and that way is Catholicism.

I hasten to add that not all Calvinist (or Reformed Protestants) act this way: not by a long shot. I have several Reformed friends, and many more Protestant friends of other persuasions. But sadly, anti-Catholicism and the usual accompanying bigotry is far too prevalent in Reformed circles: especially online (the Internet seems to bring out the worst tendencies of folks for some reason).

Thus, the present endeavor, tedious though it is, is a legitimate aspect of Catholic apologetics: exposing the unsavory methodological tactics of so many of the enemies of Holy Mother Church. Many misunderstand this, and I will get criticized for this post as I always inevitably do, by folks who don't grasp its rationale and purpose.

I am despised and detested by these sorts of apologists because I defend the Catholic Church and her teaching. Period. If it weren't for that, they wouldn't know me from Adam and I would never cross their minds. I would be perfectly irrelevant. But because I defend Catholicism and critique their garbage (and am publicly known in apologetics circles and to a lesser extent, larger theological circles, as one who does this), they attack me personally and engage in all the usual timeworn smear tactics: standard practice for those who have run out of arguments, ideas, and reasonable discourse. What we see in politics in that regard, we also sadly observe in the Christian world of competing theological truth claims.

* * * 

Steve is sadly continuing his mockery; now with yet another attack-post, "Tooting his own horn." He opines (my interjected words in brackets again):

Armstrong is a roided up version of Catholic piety. Incapable of doing any good deed out of purely disinterested concern for others. [Right. As always, Steve knows my interior motivations and every nook and cranny of my heart. Imagine saying about someone else that they don't do "any" deed for the right motives? It's mind-boggling how he cavalierly assumes that he can make such outrageous, unsupported claims. This is "Pharisaic method" x 100. It's wicked. Our Lord Jesus and St. Paul condemn this sort of attitude times without number] When I read his original post correctly defending my use of the reductio ad absurdum (before he had second thoughts and scrubbed the original post), [no "second thoughts" whatsoever; I was respecting the privacy of my Catholic friend, who had apologized; apparently that is a sort of ethics and Christianity that is incomprehensible to Steve; I had to have removed it for unsavory reasons; couldn't possibly be otherwise.] I asked myself, “Where’s the catch? Where’s the hidden fee?” [Again, Hays seems utterly unable to grasp the notion that I did it simply because he was right in that instance, and some Catholics were wrong, and I was defending the truth of the matter, as I saw it. His personal hostility to me (the wicked, "evil" person) is so great that he is almost totally blind when it comes to anything I do. According to his belief in the false doctrine of Total Depravity, he has no option but to think this] And sure enough, it didn’t take long before he dropped by our combox at Tblog to collect tribute. [what tribute? I informed him that a person he was vociferously objecting to had apologized and retracted their position. This should have been good news. But Hays didn't have it in him to accept an apology, because of the rude, boorish ass that he so often is online. Minimal Christian charity was too much to ask of him, I guess] It’s always for the greater glory of Dave. What’s in it for him? That’s the bottom line. [LOL Quite obviously, nothing at all was "in it" for me. I risked offending a fellow apologist; I did in fact cause some pain and consternation in the woman I publicly corrected, which was unpleasant to me. I knew full well from past experience that I would likely be mocked here afresh (precisely what happened). It's ridiculous to think that I thought I would personally gain anything from it, and that this explained what I did. I did it because it was right. Period. End of story.] So naturally he came by, with outstretched palm, demanding reimbursement for his good deed. [this is a total distortion of what happened, and a bald-faced lie. One would think that such continual lying and distorting of facts would become wearisome after a while. But all Hays has (very much like the liberal Democrats today) is insult and calumny, if no rational reply is forthcoming from him. He's trying to make as big a noise and throw enough manure on the wall (at my picture) so that some will eventually stick. But he only harms himself. it doesn't have the slightest effect on anything I do] And, come to think of it, that’s the essence of Catholic piety: “As soon as a coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs.” [leave it to Steve, to utilize a distortion of Catholicism, that was never official teaching, to supposedly describe the "essence of Catholic piety." Thanks for the laughs and comic relief, Steve. That was very rich in both irony and absurdity.]

Not content with this ludicrous piece of sophistry and calumny, Hays waxes eloquently and stupidly in another combox comment:

First of all, masturbation has nothing to do with this post. For some reason, Catholics like Armstrong suffer from a masturbatory fixation. That says a lot about what they have on their minds most of the time.

Yeah, right. I'm a very happily married man, with a beautiful wife whom I adore (and am quite affectionate with!), and four children, yet according to Steve (a single, 50ish guy), I am obsessed with masturbation (as if there would be any need). Makes perfect sense, doesn't it?

I'll repeat it again, s---l---o---w---l---y, so that maybe even Steve will "get it" this time, seeing that he has (for all his vaunted brain power) the most extremely difficult time comprehending the argument or tactics that someone else uses. It was a joke! Got that, Steve? He called me a "prima donna" (to add to his collection of 10,000 other insults through the years) and said I wasn't a team player (he was using as a springboard here certain aspects of the previous controversy over the reductio ad absurdum that he used, and I defended). He used humor; so did I. I "get" his, but I know that the serious charges underneath it (his really believing all this patent nonsense about me) are simply untrue, and I know that his "jokes" aren't funny when they are based on lies, because good humor (especially satire, above all) has to be truth-based in some respect in the end.

He talked about "team player" so I got the idea of making a joke about masturbation, since I knew he has defended that. My joke was funny, because even Hays' buddy Tennant admitted that he laughed at it. But Steve doesn't get it.  My joke was based in truth (his views on masturbation), which is exactly why it was funny. But Hays didn't get it, and had no comeback, so he resorted to more insult (including bringing up the ubiquitous sex scandal in the Church) and lied some more, saying I am obsessed with masturbation.

Now, let it be known that I am not saying that Hays himself engages in this sinful practice. Who knows? I don't read minds and know all interior motivations and secret acts of others, as Hays clearly thinks he does. But I confess that I did get a big chuckle over the analysis of Jon the atheist, who wrote on my blog:

I am genuinely baffled that people regard Steve as intelligent. I used to argue at Triablogue prior to being banned and I tried interacting with Steve for a while, but after much effort I finally told him that I would no longer address his criticisms of my statements. He had no ability to actually internalize what I was saying and respond to it in a coherent way.

I honestly concluded that Steve has an unhealthy and unnatural lack of empathy. His inability to walk in someone else's shoes, sympathize, and even understand what a critic would say, in my judgment made discussion with him completely unproductive. I involve myself in online discussions to learn, and to learn you need your critic to understand what you are saying. Steve either could not or would not. So there's nothing to be gained. Why do people read him? I have no clue.

My first inclination regarding his thoughts on masturbation was that it was good to see him defend something like this instead of being so legalistic, as is typical of Reformed Protestants. But having read enough of him and understanding his unnatural lack of empathy it's pretty clear that the only reason he allows devation from legalism in this case is because it's a practice he engages in.

Again, I am not agreeing with his assessment, as to Hays and masturbation, but if Hays insists on positively lying about myself, relative to this issue, then it is fair game for someone else to speculate about him. Hays lies about me and is dead serious; I merely share a chuckle about him, and joke about it: just as in my initial remark that he couldn't stomach and is now trying to spin away so vigorously that he is (physically and intellectually) dizzy as can be.



***