Cork Free Presbyterian Church, 10 Briarscourt (Annex) Shanakiel, Cork, Ireland 
Pastor: Colin Maxwell. Email: colin.maxwell@fpcmission.org

Protestant Minister Becomes Catholic Program 1 Transcripts Scott Hahn
Thank you very much. It is so good to be with you this morning. It's always a delightful surprise. I never cease to be amazed at the opportunity I have to share why I became a Roman Catholic and how the Lord worked in my wife's life and our family as well.
[As the word "transcript" and the style also suggests …this is obviously a message preached from the pulpit. This being so, we should not read it like a legal document or "make a man an offender for a word" (Isaiah 29:21) Even the fact that it is taken from the internet and so enjoyed the possibility of being edited or corrected should not be pushed too much.]

That always reminds me of one of my favorite stories. There was a young man who wanted in the worst way to ask out a beautiful young lady. It took him weeks to get up enough courage, and when he finally asked her out she said, "Yes." He was shocked and delighted. That Saturday morning arrived, and he got ready in so many ways: showered for a long time, tried to figure out what to wear, then he decided to give her a big surprise. He went down to the drug store. He walked up to the druggist behind the counter and announced, "I would like to buy a one pound box of chocolate, a two pound box and a three pound box." And the druggist bent down, got them and put them on the counter and said, "Do you mind if I ask you why you are buying three different size boxes?" "No I don't mind." And he proceeded to explain. He said, "Tonight's the night, special date, beautiful young lady, and if before the date is through she lets me hold her hand, she gets the one pound box. And if at the movie when I slyly slip my arm around her and she lets it remain there, she gets the two pound box. And if as we are exchanging goodnights she lets me give her a kiss, she gets the three pound box. The druggist said, "Sly old guy, you have a good time." He was off and he was so nervous he showed up at this young lady's house a half hour early. She came to the door and said, "We're just sitting down to dinner." He said, "Can I join you?" "Sure, I guess." And he sat down. Then he said, "Can I say grace?" And they said, "Sure." He proceeded to pray for a minute, for three minutes, five minutes. Finally after ten minutes, the man said, "Amen." He kind of looked around, a little awkward, and they proceeded to eat what was by then a cold and stale dinner. On the way out the door she whispered, "You never told me you were so religious." He whispered back, "You never told me your dad was the druggist." Life is filled with unexpected surprises, and it's a delight and a surprise for me to share how I came to see the Roman Catholic Church to be the family of God that He wants all of His children to share in.
[Sorry to jump in right away, but the implication (studied or not - but see the above proviso from Isaiah 29:21) is that if we are outside the Roman Catholic Church (Mr Hahn's own designation) then surely we must be outside the family of God. Mr Hahn does not merely contend that the RC Church is part of the family of God, but actually are the family of God. We would, of course, have to contend with him even on the lesser point, but he nails his colours very firmly here to the mast.]

Fulton Sheen once said, and I paraphrase, that there are not 100 people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church, although there might be millions of people who hate what they mistakenly believe the Catholic Church to be and to teach.
[Let me tell you where I stand. I do not hate the Roman Catholic Church (as far as people are concerned) but I absolutely loathe its distinctive doctrines. I have gained my knowledge of her doctrines from reading her literature, visiting her web sites, and simply chatting or corresponding with Roman Catholic people.]

And thankfully I discovered I fell into the second category. Because for years I opposed the Catholic Church, and I worked hard to get Catholics to leave the Church. But I came to see through a lot of study and considerable prayer that the Roman Catholic Church is based in Scripture.
[He would have difficulty seeking to establish that the Mass was founded on Scripture because two of the greatest Cardinals in the RC Church (Cajetan and Bellarmine) both expressly confessed that the doctrine of Transubstantiation was not founded on the word of God, but received from the Church. This means that the words of institution as recorded in the gospel records and 1 Corinthians 11 cannot be taken literally.]

***Teenage Conversion To Jesus***
That's what I'd like to share with you this morning. It begins with a conversion experience that I had in high school. I didn't grow up in a strong Christian family. We didn't go to church very often, and so I wasn't very religious. What the Lord used in my life was an organization called Young Life, an outreach to unchurched high school kids, and a man named Jack in particular who befriended me and also shared with me the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It made a profound difference in my life. Early in my high school years I made a commitment and I asked Jesus Christ into my heart; I asked Him to be my savior and Lord. I gave Him my sins and I received the gift of forgiveness and salvation. It made a world of difference for me.
[If the young Scott Hahn really had repented and believed the gospel (Mark 1:15) then he would have received the gift of forgiveness and salvation. In the light of his subsequent departure to the RC Church, sadly we have to query the genuineness of his conversion. Perhaps the story of his life isn't finished yet. Peter also denied his Lord and yet came back…although Judas didn't.]

It cost me a lot of my friends, but the Lord in a sense more than made up for that by giving me real friends, friends in Christ. Jack, who taught me to love the Lord, also taught me to read the Bible and not just to read it but to study it, and not just to study it, but to soak in it - to read it and to re-read it from beginning to end. By the time I was finishing high school, I had gone through the Bible two or three times in its entirety. And I had fallen in love with Sacred Scripture.
[We certainly can't blame Jack. His heart must be broken if he is still around to read these things. It is interesting to contrast Jack with most of the priests of Rome…many of whom hardly know their way around the Bible at all. One admitted, in a private conversation, that in ecumenical Bible studies, he was embarrassed at the speed and ease with which the Protestants looked up the passages. To think that the Bible Societies were condemned by different Popes in the 19th Century as "cunning and infamous Societies" and the priests urged to "turn away your flock from these poisonous pastures" Encyclical Letter of Pope Leo XII in 1824]

As a result of that I'd become convinced of a couple things. First, in addition to reading the Bible, Jack had shared with me from his own personal library the writings of Martin Luther, the writings of John Calvin, and I became a convinced Protestant Christian, not just a bible Christian, but somebody who was convinced that up until the 1500's the Gospel had almost been lost amidst all the medieval superstition and all the pagan practices that the Catholic Church had adopted.
[Good old Jack. May God raise up many other Protestant Christians who will "cry aloud and spare not" (Isaiah 58:1) against the errors of Romanism.]

And so this first conviction was to help my Catholic friends to see the simple Gospel of Jesus Christ, to show them the Bible, and to show them that in the Bible, you just accept Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord and that's all it takes.
[If by "accept" Mr Hahn means "receive and reply upon Christ as Saviour and Lord" then such will surely bring salvation. The woman with the issue of blood had only to touch the hem of Christ's garment and she was healed. In that touch, however, lay a wealth of theology although it is doubtful if she could articulate it. For salvation to be real, "accept" means much more than a mere mental assent. Click here to access our page on easy believeism which is a million miles away from the Biblical doctrine of justification by faith alone.]

None of this claptrap: Not Mary, not the saints, not purgatory, not devotions, just asking Jesus to be Savior and Lord.
[Well worded Mr Hahn. To introduce Mary or the saints or any of the rest when discussing the doctrine of salvation is pure claptrap. Even worse though than tomfoolery…it is downright dangerous. The carnal heart will look anywhere other than to Christ alone to meet his spiritual needs.]

Around that time I was dating a girl who was Catholic, and we were becoming more serious. But I knew there was no future in our relationship if she remained Catholic.
[Yes…the Bible teaches the unacceptability of the unequal yoke: 2 Cor 6:14-18 asking the pertinent question: How can two walk together except they be agreed. Amos 3:3]

So I gave to her a very large volume, a book by Loraine Boettner entitled Roman Catholicism. It's known as the bible of Anti-Catholicism. It's four hundred and fifty plus pages filled with all kinds of distortions and lies about the Catholic Church. But I didn't know that at the time, so I shared it in good faith with her.
[It would be interesting if Mr Hahn at some time could back up his claim. Until he does, we must regard these comments as scurrilous. The worth of Mr Boettner's book is, that although written before Vatican II (and therefore slightly dated) yet it is fundamentally still relevant today…simply because Rome, despite the makeover, hasn't really changed.]

She read it from cover to cover. She wrote me that summer and said, "Thanks for the book; I'll never go back to Mass again."
[A wise woman]

And I say that with a certain shame and sorrow, but I say that to illustrate the sincerity that many Bible Christians have when it comes to opposing the Catholic Church. I figured that if the wafer they're worshipping up on that altar is not God, then they're idolaters, they're pagans, they are to be pitied and opposed. If the Pope in Rome is not the infallible vicar of Christ who can bind hundreds of millions of Catholics in their beliefs and practices, then he's a tyrant. He's a spiritual dictator pure and simple. And because I didn't think he was the infallible vicar, I thought it was very reasonable for me to help Catholics to see the same thing in order to get them to leave the Church.
[No one would doubt Mr Hahn's reasoning here. Even some of Rome's most able of apologists put forth the same reasoning. For example, Cardinal Manning said: "The Catholic Church is either the masterpiece of Satan or the Kingdom of the Son of God." Cardinal Newman acknowledged: "If not divinely appointed, it is doctrinally the essence of antichrist." In the distinct absence of any Scriptural proof that the mass wafer is anything else but a bit of bread becoming an idol or that the Pope has the Scriptural authority to bind hundreds of millions etc., then it is most natural that Protestants feel the way they do and seek to see their Roman Catholic friends rescued.]

The only Catholic in my family on both sides was my beloved grandmother. She was very quiet, very humble, very holy, I have to admit. And she was also a devout Catholic. When she passed away, I was given her religious belongings by my parents. I went through her prayer book and her missal, and then I found her rosary beads. All of this stuff just made me sick inside. I knew my grandmother had a real faith in Jesus, but I wondered what would all of this mean.
[With all due respect, Mr Hahn's grandmother did not have a real faith in Jesus. At least, not if she believed and practised the Roman Catholic religion. The RC Jesus, as acknowledged in the previous paragraph, is a wafer Jesus, practically conjured up at the whim of a RC priest.]

So I tore apart her rosary beads, and I threw them in this waste can. I thought of these beads almost like chains that at last she was broken free from.
[Not every Protestant would have done that. Some, who otherwise despise the whole idea of praying the Rosary with its 10/1 emphasise on Mary (as opposed the Father) might have held on the beads purely and solely for sentimental reasons. I would not take issue with them for that. Others might have declined this part of the inheritance.]

That was the second aspect of my own outlook: that these people might have some faith but it was just surrounded by lies, and so they needed loving Bible Christians to get them out.
[Now Mr Hahn believes - or at least his church does - that Protestants have some faith but that it is surrounded by lies and we need loving Bible and tradition Catholics to get us out. At least his actions were (and indeed are) consistent with his doctrinal position. Only his theology then was Biblical - now its not.]

Well, after graduating from high school, I decided not only to pursue the ministry but to study theology as well.
[Actually studying theology is all part of the ministry. The role of the minister is to take the theological themes of the word of God and feed them in an acceptable and understandable way to his flock. To a greater or lesser degree, every Christian should be a theologian.]

The decision came as a result of the senior research paper that I wrote my final year in high school. I wrote a paper entitled Sola Fide. That's a Latin phrase which means Faith Alone or By Faith Alone. It's actually the phrase that Martin Luther used to launch the Protestant Reformation. He said that we are justified, we are made right with God by faith alone, not by any works that we might do. And for him, that was the article on which the church stands or falls, as he put it. And because of that, the Catholic Church fell and the Protestant Church rose. I wrote that research paper fully convinced after much study that, if you get it wrong on this point, you get it wrong on everything else. If you say faith plus anything, you have polluted the simple truth of the Gospel. And so I went into college with this strong conviction.
[Of course, not only did Luther say it…but the Apostles also and indeed all the inspired writers: Romans 1:17. Up to this point, Mr Hahn evidently has been well taught. Old Jack has done a good work.]

***College Years***
My four years of college were spent triple majoring in Philosophy, Theology in Scripture and Economics. But they were also spent doing ministry in Young Life. I wanted to in effect repay God out of gratitude for how He had used Young Life in my life to introduce me to Christ.
[All this is a standard Protestant outlook on life. We realise, of course, that we can never (to quote the hymn writer) "repay that debt of love I owe" but we should do try. At least here is some kind of evidence that Protestantism with its teaching of salvation by grace alone with works does not lead to indolence or any other nasty things.]

So for those four years I devoted myself to reaching unchurched kids who didn't know about Christ, and I confess that this category included Catholic kids in the high school where I worked because I looked at these poor benighted souls who really didn't know Jesus Christ. I discovered after several Bible studies that not only did these kids not know Jesus Christ, but practically every Catholic high school kid I met didn't even know what the Catholic Church taught. If one or two of them knew what the Church taught, they didn't know why. They didn't have any reasons to back up their beliefs as Catholics.
[And why not? Because in many instances, Rome does not teach her people. She swells her arrogant chest and presumes to tell them. After all…in effect…is she not the Mistress of the Bible? Does the Bible not owe its very existence to her? ("No Church…no Bible" is the rallying watchword) It was not uncommon in Ireland for the priest to answer any query from his flock with the rebuke: "Are you questioning Holy Mother Church? Did I not study for seven years in Maynooth College and dare you query my word?" It might not be that now…but only because the people wouldn't stand for it.]

So getting them to see from the Bible, the Gospel as I understood it from Martin Luther, from an anti-Catholic perspective, was like picking off ducks in a barrel.
[The old cry again: Anti-Catholic. To the uninitiated…any one who opposes the teachings of the RC Church are automatically deemed to be anti- Catholic. Not anti-Catholicism…but anti-Catholic. Why is this? Perhaps a slip of the tongue…but more often a red herring. Is Mr Hahn now anti Protestant? Or would he draw the difference as I am seeking to do and say that he was anti-Protestantism? The proverbial knife cuts both ways. It is a piece of subterfuge which should be exposed for what it is.]

They weren't ready, they were unequipped, they were defenseless. I don't know exactly what has happened in the last fifteen, twenty, twenty-five years, but I look back on those kids and wonder if they weren't guinea pigs in some sort of catechetical experiment, that people thought we could bypass instructing them in the doctrines they need to believe and in the reasons for those doctrines. But there they were.
[This is good news for Protestants. There are many more out there likewise abandoned by Rome. Part of the problem for Rome is that there is a whole lot of disillusioned priests stuck in parishes etc., who don't believe their religion. They go through the motions of saying mass etc, but hardly even believe in God. What a challenge for Bible believing Christians. If Rome has practically abandoned these people, let us seek to win them.]

I saw many of them leave the Church and I opposed them in a certain sense out of a sincere good faith, but also I opposed them because I myself was uninformed.
[Again, like the comments on Loraine Boettner's book, we are not actually told what the problem is. We may safely disregard such remarks until further information is ventured to us.]

My third year of ministry in Young Life I asked a young lady, the most beautiful girl on campus, if she would join me in working together to reach these unchurched kids. Kimberly said, "Yes." We worked together for two years and had a blast. Sometimes we'd fight like brother and sister in discussing various ways and means to reach these kids. But we really grew to respect one another so that at the end of these four years of college, I posed the question. And I think the dumbest thing she ever said, but the greatest thing she ever said was "Yes." We got married right out of college. Both of us had so much of the same vision. We wanted to do ministry together, we wanted to share the good news of Christ, we wanted to open up the Bible and make it come alive for people.
[It sure sounds so wonderful. We sincerely question now…what went wrong?]

***Seminary Years***
We were off to seminary a week or two after our wedding. What a great experience it was studying theology together for a Master's Degree. I took a three-year degree at Gordon-Conwell seminary in Boston; she took a two-year degree. Both of us ended up with our Master's Degrees. After three years I graduated at the top of my class. I say that not out of any pride, but to illustrate how I pursued my studies with a sort of vengeance. People who knew me at seminary, knew me to be rather intense. I would spend just about every waking hour reading and studying Scripture or books about Scripture that would make more sense out of the Bible. If I wasn't reading and studying, I was out looking around at used book stores finding resources. Kimberly and I had a great three-year experience.
[Got to hand it to the Protestants. Rome might tell us haughtily that the Bible is her book - it is the Protestants who actually study it. Of course, many Catholics do so as well - I am not suggesting that Protestants have a monopoly on Bible study - but it is they who take the whole matter seriously. Protestantism gives the Bible its rightful place. It is the final word. Rome subjects it to her interpretation.]

But a couple of things happened along the way that I need to relate because in retrospect I see them as landmark experiences. The first thing was a course that Kimberly took her first year, a class that I had taken the year before entitled Christian Ethics. Dr. Davis had all the students break up into small groups so that each small group could tackle one topic. There was a small group on abortion, a small group on nuclear war, a small group on capital punishment. One dinner she announced that she was in a small group devoted to studying contraception. I remember thinking at the time, "Why contraception?" The year before when I took the class, nobody signed up for that small group and I told her. She said, "Well, three others have signed up for it and we had our first meeting today. So and so appointed himself to be chair of the committee, and he announced the results of our study even before it began. He said, 'Well, we all know as Protestants, as Bible Christians, that contraception is fine, I mean so long as we don't use contraceptives that are abortafacients like the I.U.D. and so on.' He announced further that really the only people who call themselves Christians who oppose artificial birth control are the Catholics, and he said, 'The reason they do, of course, is because they are run by a celibate Pope and lead by celibate priests who don't have to raise the kids but want Catholic parents to raise lots so they can have lots of priests and nuns to draw from, you know.'" Well, that kind of argumentation did not really impress Kimberly.
[I'm sure it didn't. It doesn't impress me either. ]

She said, "Are you sure those are the best arguments they would offer?" And I guess he must have mocked or said, "Well, do you want to look into it yourself?" You don't say that kind of thing to Kimberly. She said, "Yes," and she took an interest in researching this on her own. A week went by and Terry stopped me in the halls. He said, "You ought to talk to your wife; she's unearthed some interesting information about contraception." Interesting information about contraception? What is interesting about contraception? Well, you know he said, "She's your wife; you ought to find out." "Yeah, all right; I will, Terry." So that night at dinner I asked her, "What is Terry talking about?" And she said, "I've discovered that up until 1930, every single Protestant denomination without exception opposed contraception on Biblical grounds." Then I said, "Oh come on, maybe it just took us a few centuries to work out the last vestiges of residual Romanism, I don't know." And she said, "Well, I'm going to look into it." Then another week later, Terry stopped me and said," Her arguments make sense." I said, "Arguments against contraception from Scripture?" He said, "You ought to talk to her." "All right, I'll talk to her." You know, given the subject matter, I thought I better. So I raised the issue and she handed me a book. It was entitled Birth Control and the Marriage Covenant by John Kippley. It just recently was reissued, entitled Sex and the Marriage Covenant. You can get it from Couple to Couple League in Cincinnati. I began to read through the book with great interest because in my own personal study, going through the Bible several times, I had come upon this strong conviction that if you want to know God, you have to understand the covenant, because the covenant was the central idea in all of Scripture.
[For the record…contraception is an issue upon which even Bible Protestants differ. We leave it to the conscience of each believer. The bedroom is private. We don't tolerate the idea that the priest has a say what goes on in there. Truth is…at last, many Roman Catholics are coming to the same conclusion. Even mass going Catholics are at loggerheads with their church on this. Perhaps some day Rome will soften her stand. Maybe some day she will have married priests who will face these issues in a situation far from any ivory towers?]

So when I picked up this book I was interested to see the word 'covenant' in the title, Birth Control and the Marriage Covenant. I opened it up and I began reading it, and I said, "Wait a second, Kimberly, this guy is a Catholic. You expect me to read a Catholic?"
[Let me tell you something here. I am a Free Presbyterian. My church is as soundly Protestant as any on this earth. If a Catholic produces relevant issues on any subject…I am more than willing to read what he has to say. Of course, I will read with caution…I don't particularly frequent Catholic Bookshops, but any thing brought to my attention will be duly read and ultimately judged on content…not source. If Mr Hahn had problems reading Catholic material , I suggest that they were personal. Protestantism is not a closed mind religion.]

And the thought occurred to me instantly at that moment, What is a Catholic doing putting 'covenant' into his book title? Since when do Catholics hijack my favorite concept? Well, I began to read the book. I went through two or three chapters and he was beginning to make sense, so I promptly threw the book across my desk. I didn't frankly want him to make any sense.
[Implication here: Protestants are nonsensical. Closed eyes…bigots etc., No…we don't all get on like this.]

But I picked it up again and read through some more. His arguments made a lot of sense. From the Bible, from the covenant, he showed that the marital act is not just a physical act; it's a spiritual act that God has designed by which the marital covenant is renewed. And in all covenants you have an opportunity to renew the covenant, and the act of covenant renewal is an act or a moment of grace. When you renew a covenant, God releases grace, and grace is life, grace is power, grace is God's own love. Kippley shows how in a marital covenant, God has designed the marital act to show the life-giving power of love. That in the marital covenant the two become one, and God has designed it so that when the two become one, they become so one that nine months later you might just have to give it a name. And that child who is conceived, embodies the oneness that God has made the two through the marital act. This is all the way that God has designed the marital covenant. God said, "Let us make man in our image and likeness," and God, who is three in one, made man, male and female, and said, "Be fruitful and multiply." The two shall become one and when the two become one, the one they become is a third child, and then they become three in one. It just began to make a lot of sense, and he went through other arguments as well.
[Perhaps Mr Hahn has a point here. It is outside the scope of this review to argue for or against contraception.]

By the time I finished the book, I was convinced. It bothered me just a little that the Roman Catholic Church was the only denomination, the only Church tradition on earth that upheld this age-old Christian teaching rooted in Scripture, because in 1930 the Anglican Church broke from this tradition and began to allow contraception, and shortly thereafter every single mainline denomination on earth practically caved in to the mounting pressure of the sexual revolution.
[Many of those who agree with contraception do so on other grounds that it just the "done thing" Many Protestant churches faithfully oppose the so called sexual revolution with its illicit sex etc., If Mr Hahn wants to oppose the sexual revolution with its lifting of many inhibitions, he should examine the lack of morality which was found for many decades in the Confessional Box. A good book to consult on this subject is: The Priest, the Woman and the Confessional" by Father Chiniquy. There were generations of children morally corrupted by the questions which RC priests were obliged to put to them. Sorry…but it needed saying.]

By the 1960's and 70's, my own denomination, the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, not only endorsed contraception, but abortion on demand and federal funding for abortion, and that appalled me.
[Abortion appals every right thinking person. The PCUSA has lost its Biblical moorings. It has practically abandoned its Protestantism.]

And I began to wonder if there wasn't a connection between giving in a little here and then all of a sudden watching the floodgates open later.
[Perhaps there is a connection between the PCUSA leaving the Bible and its ecumenical overtures to Rome? Once you leave the Bible, any thing can happen.]

I thought "No, no, you know the Catholic Church has been around for 2000 years; they're bound to get something right." We have a saying in our family that even a blind hog finds an acorn, and so it was, I thought.
[No one says that Rome are completely wrong.]

That was my second year. During my third and final year at seminary, something happened that represented a crisis for me. I was studying covenant and I heard of another theologian studying covenant, a man by the name of Professor Shepherd in Philadelphia teaching at Westminster Seminary. I heard about Shepherd because he was being accused of heresy. People were suggesting that his heresy grew out of his understanding of the covenant. So I got some documents that he had written, some articles, and I read through them. I discovered that Professor Shepherd had come across the same conclusions that my research had led me to. In the Protestant world the idea of covenant is understood practically as synonymous with or interchangeable with contract. When you have a covenant with God, it's the same as having a contract. You give God your sin; He gives you Christ, and everything is a faith-deal for salvation. But the more I studied, the more I came to see that for the ancient Hebrews, and in Sacred Scripture, a covenant differs from a contract about as much as marriage differs from prostitution. In a contract you exchange property, whereas in a covenant you exchange persons. In a contract you say, "This is yours and that is mine," but Scripture shows how in a covenant you say, "I am yours and you are mine." Even when God makes a covenant with us, He says, "I will be your God and you will be my people." After studying Hebrew, I discovered that 'Am, the Hebrew word for people, literally means, kinsman, family. I will be your God and father; you will be my family, my sons and my daughters, my household. So covenants form kinship bonds which makes family with God. I read Shepherd's articles, and he was saying much of the same thing: our covenant with God means sonship. I thought, "Well, yeah, this is good." I wondered what heresy is involved in that.
[Excuse my ignorance…but I never heard of Professor Shepherd. I am not up on the American scene at all. We will move on…]

Then somebody told me, "Shepherd is calling into question sola fide." What! No way. I mean, that is the Gospel. That is the simple truth of Jesus Christ. He died for sins; I believe in him. He saves me, pure and simple; it's a done deal. Sola fide? He's questioning that? No way. I called him on the phone. I said, "I've read your stuff on covenant; it makes lots of sense. I've come to pretty much the same conclusions. But why is this leading you to call into question Luther's doctrine of sola fide?"
[If it had been me, I would have asked: "Why are you calling into question Christ's doctrine of sola fide?" and quoted him John 3:18 etc.,]

He went on to show in this discussion that Luther's conception of justification was very restricted and limited. It had lots of truth, but it also missed lots of truths.
[Watch this one very carefully. We are going to witness a very deft move of terminology and it makes all the difference. The subject is Luther's concept of justification. Note that: justification.]

When I hung up the phone, I pursued this a little further and I discovered that for Luther and for practically all of Bible Christianity and Protestantism, God is a judge, and the covenant is a courtroom scene whereby all of us are guilty criminals. But since Christ took our punishment, we get his righteousness, and he gets our sins, so we get off scot-free; we're justified. For Luther, in other words, salvation...
[There it is! We move from justification to salvation. Is there a difference? Yes. Justification is a part. Salvation is a whole, of which justification is a part. Mr Hahn confuses the two because Rome confuses the two. I know it all sounds very fine and delicate…but it makes a world of difference.]

...is a legal exchange, but for Paul in Romans, for Paul in Galatians, salvation is that, but it's much more than that.
[Exactly. Luther isn't at fault here. He has just been misunderstood or misrepresented…whatever Mr Hahn frame of mind may have been as he spoke these words.]
It isn't just a legal exchange because the covenant doesn't point to a Roman courtroom so much as to a Hebrew family room. God is not just simply a judge; God is a father, and his judgments are fatherly. Christ is not just somebody who represents an innocent victim who takes our rap, our penalty; He is the firstborn among many brethren. He is our oldest brother in the family, and he sees us as runaways, as prodigals, as rebels who are cut off from the life of God's family. And by the new covenant Christ doesn't just exchange in a legal sense; Christ gives us His own sonship so that we really become children of God. When I shared this with my friends, they were like, "Yeah, that's Paul."

[Two thoughts here. First: I contacted Rev Alan Cairns in our Greenville FPC about "Christ giving us His own sonship. This is his reply:
"Hahn is a slippery customer and a complete pervert to popery. He utterly rejects the doctrine of justification by the imputed righteousness of Christ. He takes the Tridentine position that justifying righteousness is infused at baptism and increased by personal obedience. So when he speaks of Christ "giving us His own sonship" he is not thinking in terms of imputation but of actual sharing.

Now in a sense we can speak of sharing Christ's sonship. He is God's Son and in Him we are sons of God. Christ has a two fold sonship, what I may call essential and ethical. As the only begotten Son of God He has an essential Sonship (i.e. pertaining to His eternal essence or being: this is His Trinitarian Sonship). But as the Mediator He has also an ethical Sonship. This is the only kind of Sonship we possess, and we may quite properly say we share it with Christ--not His personal Sonship, but the nature of His Sonship. He may be said to "give" it to us in that we have this relationship with God solely through His merit.

However, I suspect Hahn means something very different. Rome's teaching of sanctification is that it is a process of deification (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #1999). So Hahn might mean that Christ actually gives us His sonship in the sense of deifying us. And of course, that can never be. 2 Pet.1:4 is used to support such a notion, but the uniform teaching of Scripture precludes us from interpreting this as anything more than our perfect moral conformity to the righteousness and holiness God has demanded in His law and exemplified in His Son."
Secondly: Where does Luther or Calvin teach that Christ represents an innocent victim? Besides, if He takes our rap and penalty…then we are hardly innocent victims? The man here is talking nonsense. He is like the false witnesses who brought slurs against the Lord Jesus. The witness does not stand up to scrutiny (Mark 14:59) Did he really forsake his Protestant heritage for an argument like this?]

But when I went into the writings of Luther and Calvin, I didn't find it any longer. They had trained me to study Scripture, but in the process, in a sense, I discovered that there were some very significant gaps in their teaching.
[Mr Hahn fails to substantiate his claim. Fair enough He is preaching to a mixed audience in a church…but he does leave himself open to the question: Why say these things in the first place?]

So I came to the conclusion that sola fide is wrong. First, because the Bible never says it anywhere.
[It certainly teaches it, even if the actual words are not used. Just as it teaches the trinity, although the actual word is never used. [Click here to access A.A. Hodge's exposition of the doctrine.]

Second, because Luther inserted the word "alone" in his German translation, there in Romans 3, although he knew perfectly well that the word "alone" was not in the Greek.
[Luther should never have done this. For one, it is not there in the original Greek. The translator is there to simply translate word for word the original languages. It is the job of the preacher to interpret the Bible and apply it. I think I read somewhere that Luther actually put the word in in italics to indicate that it was not in the original. I'm not sure on that one. However, it would have been better if he hadn't. All he has done is to give ammunition to the likes of Mr Hahn. Just for the record, Mr Hahn's church has added a multitude of books to the canon of scripture but Luther gets hauled over the coals over one word! ]

Nowhere did the Holy Spirit ever inspire the writers of Scripture to say we're saved by faith alone. Paul teaches we're saved by faith, but in Galatians [5:6] he says we're saved by faith working in love.
[Calvin commenting on this passage answers well: "There would be no difficulty in this passage, were it not for the dishonest manner in which it has been tortured by the Papists to uphold the righteousness of works. When they attempt to refute our doctrine, that we are justified by faith alone, they take this line of argument. If the faith which justifies us be that "which worketh by love," then faith alone does not justify. I answer, they do not comprehend their own silly talk; still less do they comprehend our statements. It is not our doctrine that the faith which justifies is alone; we maintain that it is invariably accompanied by good works; only we contend that faith alone is sufficient for justification. The Papists themselves are accustomed to tear faith after a murderous fashion, sometimes presenting it out of all shape and unaccompanied by love, and at other times, in its true character. We, again, refuse to admit that, in any case, faith can be separated from the Spirit of regeneration; but when the question comes to be in what manner we are justified, we then set aside all works. With respect to the present passage, Paul enters into no dispute whether love co-operates with faith in justification; but, in order to avoid the appearance of representing Christians as idle and as resembling blocks of wood, he points out what are the true exercises of believers. When you are engaged in discussing the question of justification, beware of allowing any mention to be made of love or of works, but resolutely adhere to the exclusive particle. Paul does not here treat of justification, or assign any part of the praise of it to love. Had he done so, the same argument would prove that circumcision and ceremonies, at a former period, had some share in justifying a sinner. As in Christ Jesus he commends faith accompanied by love, so before the coming of Christ ceremonies were required. But this has nothing to do with obtaining righteousness, as the Papists themselves allow; and neither must it be supposed that love possesses any such influence."]

And that's the way it is in a family isn't it? A father doesn't say to his kids, "Hey, kids, since you're in my family and all the other kids who are your friends aren't, you don't have to work, you don't have to obey, you don't have to sacrifice because, hey, you're saved. You're going to get the inheritance no matter what you do." That's not the way it works.

[No it isn't and Biblical Protestantism doesn't teach that it does. Luther commenting on Galatians 5:6 wrote: For Paul saith not: Faith which justifieth by love, or: Faith which maketh acceptable by love. Such a text do they invent, and forcibly thrust it unto this place. Much less did Paul say: Charity maketh acceptable. He saith not so, but he saith: 'Faith which worketh by love' He saith that works are done by faith through love, and not that a man is justified love. But who is so rude a grammarian that he understandeth not from the very words, that it is one thing to be justified and another to work? For the words of Paul are clear and plain: Faith WORKETH by love." If Mr Hahn had not been a Protestant minister, steeped in the Reformed Faith, then we might have excused his ignorance. But it is hard to respect such a man who was so acquainted with the doctrines of the Protestant faith should resort to misrepresenting the Protestant faith. He can hardly claim that his faith is working by love when he resorts to such a tactic. Especially having claimed above that Mr Boettner's book on Rome was "filled with all kinds of distortions and lies" This in itself must show us that whatever faith Mr Hahn has embraced, it is not the faith of God's elect, for such faith acknowledges the truth which is after godliness. (Titus 1:1)]

So I changed my mind and I grew very concerned. One of my most brilliant professors, a man named Dr. John Gerstner, had once said that if we're wrong on sola fide, I'd be on my knees outside the Vatican in Rome tomorrow morning doing penance. Now we laughed, what rhetoric, you know. But he got the point across; this is the article from which all of the other doctrines flow. And if we're wrong there, we're going to have some homework to get done to figure out where else we might have gone wrong.
[Good stuff from Mr Gerstner. This is no overstating of the case.]

I was concerned, but I wasn't overly concerned. At the time I was planning to go to Scotland to study at Aberdeen University the doctrine of the covenant, because in Scotland, covenant theology was born and developed. And I was eager to go over and study there. So I wasn't particularly concerned about resolving this issue because, after all, that could be the focus of my doctoral study. Then all of a sudden we got news that our change in theory about contraception had brought about a change in Kimberly's anatomy and physiology; she was pregnant. And Margaret Thatcher was not interested in funding American babies being born in her great empire. So we looked at the situation; we realized that we couldn't afford to go over to Scotland just yet. We'd have to take a year off, but what were we going to do as we were drawing close to graduation? We weren't sure; we began to pray.

***Becomes Pastor of a Church in Virginia***
The phone rang. A church in Virginia, a well-known church that I had heard a lot of good about called me up and said, "Would you consider coming down to candidate for the pastorate here?" This meant preaching a trial sermon, leading a Bible study, interviewing with the elders who ran the session. I said, "Sure." I went down, preached a sermon, led a Bible study, met with the session. They said, "That was great; we want you here. In fact we'll pay you well enough so that you can study at least 20 hours a week in Scripture and theology. We want you to preach, however, at least 45 minutes each Sunday morning to open up for us the Word." 45 minutes! Can you imagine what a priest would get if he preached for 45 minutes?
[In modern day Ireland - there would be a row and a half if he went over about 5-10 minutes. Especially if there was a Gaelic football match on in the afternoon. However, you could probably count on the fingers of one hand the number of priests who would want to preach any longer than 10 minutes…unless the subject was money  ]

The next week that sanctuary and the whole Church would be empty.
[Told you.]

Here they were asking me to preach at least 45 minutes. I said, "If you insist, you know, twist my arm. Sure." And they said, "We want you to immerse us in the Word of God," and so I began. The first thing I did was to tell them about covenant.
[It might have been more honest to have said something to the effect: "Hi…I think you should know first that I am starting to doubt the Reformed doctrine of justification by faith alone. Can somebody help me?"]

The second thing I did was to correct their misunderstanding of covenant as contract to show them that covenant means family. The third thing I did was to show them that the family of God makes more sense of who we are and what Christ has done than anything in the Bible. God is Father, God is Son, and God through the Holy Spirit has made us one family with Him. And as soon as I began to preach this and teach this, it just took off like wildfire. It spread through the parish; you could see it affecting marriages and families. It was exciting. The fourth thing I did, was to teach them about liturgy and covenant and family, that in Scripture the covenant is celebrated through liturgical worship whereby God's family gathers for a meal to celebrate the sacrifice of Christ. I suggested in my preaching and teaching that maybe we ought to have the family meal, communion. I even used the word "Eucharist." They never heard it before. I said, "Maybe we ought to celebrate being God's covenant-family by communion each week." "What?" I said, "Instead of being sermon-centered, why not have the sermon be a prelude and a preparation to enter into celebrating who we are as God's family?"
[Note the words…here is the cat let out of the bag. "Instead of being sermon centred…" i.e. lets get away from the word of God. OK…the sermon was there, but is God's word to be a mere prelude? Paul exhorted young Timothy to "Preach the word" (2 Timothy 4:2) Paul summarised his ministry with the words "We preach…" (1 Corinthians 1:23/2 Corinthians 5:4) Once we relegate that…it soon gets abandoned altogether. That's why Mr Hahn proposes empty sanctuaries if the priest even thought about preaching a 45 minute sermon. He was sowing the seeds of his own apostasy.]

They loved it. But one guy came up and said, "Every week? You know familiarity breeds contempt; you sure we should do it every week?" I said, "Well, wait a second. You know, do you say to you wife I love you only four times a year? After all, honey, familiarity breeds contempt. You know I don't want to kiss you more than four times a year." He looked and he said, "I get your point." As we changed our liturgy, we felt a change in our lived experience as a parish but also in our families as well. It was exciting to see, and as I taught them more about the covenant, they just hungered and thirsted for still more.
[Many Protestant churches break bread every week. Others choose not to. It does not form part of the Roman controversy.]

Meanwhile, I was also teaching part time at the local Christian high school that met there at the church. I had some of the brightest students I have ever taught, and they also responded with enthusiasm to this covenant idea. I began to teach a course on salvation history, and at first they were scared because it was so confusing, all those names and places that you can't even pronounce much less make sense out of. So I showed them, "Hey, once you think of covenant as family, it's really quite simple." I took my students through the series of covenants in the Old Testament which led up to Christ. First, you have the covenant God makes with Adam; that's a marriage, a family bond. The second covenant is the one that God makes with Noah. That's a family, a household with Noah, his wife, his three sons, and their three wives; together they formed a family of God, a household of faith. Then in Abraham's time you actually have God's family growing to the extent where it becomes a tribal family. Then the next covenant God makes with Moses and Israel has twelve tribes that become one nation, but through the covenant they become God's national family. Until finally when Christ establishes the new covenant. Instead of having God's family identified with one nation, the distinctive greatness of the New Covenant, I taught them, was that now we have an international family, a world wide family -- a catholic family. One of my students raised her hand and said, "What would this look like if we could actually redevelop it?" I drew a pyramid on the board and I said, "Think of it like a big extended family with father and mother figures at all these different levels, and all of us being brothers and sisters in Christ. I heard somebody murmur in the back, "Sure looks like the Catholic Church to me." I said, "No, no, no! What I'm giving you is the solution to the problems, the antidote to the poison." Well, Rebecca came up one day at lunch time. I was eating lunch and she said, "We took a little vote in the back of the class; it's unanimous; we all think you're going to become a Roman Catholic." I choked on my sandwich, "Quiet, quiet. I don't want to lose my job, but Rebecca, I assure you that what I'm giving you is not Catholicism; it's the antidote to the poison of Catholicism." She just stood there looking at me, "No, it's unanimous, you're going to become a Catholic."
[Maybe I'm missing something here. I am not an expert on theology. Maybe there's more to what was happening than Mr Hahn has told us (We know that he can be economic with truth) but I can't see anything in this covenant idea that is overtly Romanist? Whatever… it was certainly perceptive on the part of the students.]

And she turned around and walked away. Well, I was stunned by that. I went home that afternoon, walked into the kitchen, saw Kimberly over by the refrigerator and I said, "You'll never guess what Rebecca said today." "Tell me what, another Rebecca story?" I said. "Well, she came up at lunch time and announced that they had taken a vote in the back of the class, and it was unanimous that I'm going to become a Roman Catholic. Can you imagine that, me becoming a Catholic?" And she wasn't laughing one bit. She just stood there staring at me, she said, "Well, are you?" It was as though somebody plunged a dagger into my back. You know, "Et tu, Brute, Kimberly? Not you, too."
[There must have been something else there. Even his wife had her suspicions. Perhaps it was as much in what he wasn't saying. Always keep a firm Protestant ring to your preaching.]

I said, "You know I'm a Calvinist, a Calvinist of Calvinists, a Presbyterian, an anti-Catholic.
[See above for my note on the difference between anti Catholic and anti Catholicism]

I've given away dozens of copies of Boettner's book; I've gotten Catholics to leave. I was weaned on Martin Luther." She just stood there and she said, "Yeah, but sometimes I wonder if you're not Luther in reverse." Whoa, wait a minute here! I had nothing to say. I just slowly walked back in my study, shut the door, locked it, sank into my seat and really began to brood. I was scared. Luther in reverse. For me at one point that meant salvation in reverse. I was scared. Maybe I'm studying too much and praying too little, so I began to pray much more. I began to read more anti-Catholic books, but they just didn't make sense anymore. So I began to turn to Catholic sources and read them.
[It is not wrong to read Catholic books - but you do need to have your wits about you. There are a lot of clever men out there who can make merchandise of you and you don't even know it. This is one reason why we decided to review this testimony. Remember, the old Jesuit maxim is that the end justifies the means and Rome has no conscience about employing less than honest methods to lure people into her fold. Like the young man in Proverbs 7:22-23, Mr Hahn follows the harlot church "straightway as an ox goeth to the slaughter…and knoweth not that it is for his life." He has played down the place of the Bible. He has elevated the place of the sacrament and he is easy meat for the powers of darkness.]

***Teacher at a Presbyterian Seminary***
Meanwhile something dramatic occurred. I was approached by a seminary, a Presbyterian seminary, and asked if I would teach courses to the seminarians beginning with one Gospel of John seminar. I said, "Sure."
[But not a word about the serious doubts etc., which basic honesty would demand.]

So I began to share from the Gospel of John all about the covenant, about the family of God, about what it really means to be born again. I discovered in my study that being born again does not mean accepting Jesus Christ as personal Savior and Lord and asking Him into your heart -- although that is important and every believer, Catholic or otherwise, should have Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord and a living personal relationship with Him. But I discovered what Jesus meant in John 3 when He said that you've got to be born again.
[Accepting the fact that this is a message delivered in a popular format to a people who would empty their church if he got dangerously near the 45 minute deadline, Mr Hahn is wonderfully vague about what he means here. Bible Protestants believe that regeneration (in which the sinner is entirely passive) leads to faith in the Lord Jesus - worded here as accepting Christ as personal Saviour etc., Mr Hahn obviously means that there is a lot more required than what Protestants teach.]

He turns around and says that you've got to be born of water and spirit. In the previous chapters He was just baptized with water and the Spirit descended upon Him. And as soon as He is done talking to Nicodemus about the need to be born from water and Spirit, the very next verse says that Jesus and the disciples went about baptizing. I taught that being born again is a covenant act, a sacrament, a covenant renewal involving baptism.
[In other words, he taught baptismal regeneration. He is now a thorough going Romanist, although he has not yet joined their church. When Jesus talks about being born again of water and the Spirit, He is referring to the word of God…not the water that either fills a font or a tank. In Ephesians 5:26 the water is associated with the word of God and subsequently Peter teaches that we are born again through the word of God (! Peter 1:23) i.e. the Spirit takes the preached word and regenerates the soul. If the water referred to in John 3:5 is the water of baptism, then the dying thief would be damned because he was not baptised. The teaching of baptism of desire…i.e. where you weren't baptised but we all pretend you really were…is just a cobbled up doctrine which tries unsuccessfully to cover a large gaping hole well below the water line.]

I shared this with my seminary students; they were convinced.
[Wow! Is Mr Hahn really telling us that not at least one seminary student raised his hand and objected to this rank Romanism? If not … then the seminary could hardly said to be truly Presbyterian or Protestant. If (and it is a big "if") Mr Hahn is telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth…it seems that he was half way to Rome any way.]

Meanwhile I was preparing my sermons and some lectures ahead of John chapter 3. I was delving into John chapter 6. I don't know how many of you've ever studied the Gospel of John. In many ways it's the richest Gospel of all. But John chapter 6 is my favorite chapter in the fourth Gospel. There I discovered something that I think I read before, but I never noticed. Listen to it. "Jesus said to them, 'Truly, truly I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink His blood you have no life in you. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life and I will raise him up at the last day, for my flesh is food indeed and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him.'" I read that; I reread that; I looked at it from ten different angles. I bought all these books about it, commentaries on John. I couldn't understand how to make sense out of it. I had been trained to interpret that in a figurative sense; Jesus is using a symbol. Flesh and blood really is just a symbol of His body and blood. But the more I studied, the more I realized that that interpretation makes no sense at all.
[The common view is that the flesh and blood referred to here are symbolic of His work at the Cross. We will return to this interpretation in a few moments.]

Why? Because as soon as all the Jews hear what Jesus says, they depart. Up until this point, thousands were following him, and then all of a sudden the multitudes just simply are shocked that He says, "My flesh is food indeed, my blood is drink indeed" and they all depart. Thousands of disciples leave Him. If Jesus had intended that language to only be figurative, He would have been morally obligated as a teacher to say, "Stop, I only mean it figuratively."
[He used figurative language in 2:18-21 but did not explain it to the Jews who misunderstood Him. He does explain some of His figurative language to Nicodemus in John 3. Evidently, He is not under any obligation to anyone to explain to them there and then the significance of His words.]

But He doesn't do that; instead, what does he do? My research showed me that he turns to the twelve, and he says to them, what? "We better hire a public relations (P.R.) agent; I really blew it guys." No! He says, "Are you going to leave me too?" He doesn't say, "Do you understand I only meant it as a symbol?"
[This, in itself, is no proof that it was not symbolic. We must take the Bible as we find it. It sure would be handy if God had arranged the interpretation of various passages were inserted in the text. Then we could sort out once and for all the more puzzling passages, for example, in Ezekiel etc., But for wise reasons, known to Himself, He didn't.]

No! He says that the truth is what sets us free, I have taught the truth. What are you going to do about it? Peter stands up and speaks out; he says, "To whom shall we go? You alone have the words of eternal life and we've come to believe." Peter's statement, "To whom shall we go?" implies that, "You know, Jesus, we don't understand what you mean either, but do you have another Rabbi on the scene you can recommend? You know, to whom shall we go? It's too late for us; we believe whatever you say even if we don't understand it fully, and if you say we have to eat your flesh and drink your blood, then somehow you'll give us the grace we need to accept your words at face value."
[Mr Hahn here forces his interpretation unto the scripture. At best, he can call it an implication. Not really much to go on is it? Here, he belongs to a church which claims the sole right to interpret the Bible. Its head claims to be the teacher of all Christians, and yet we come here to a passage of scripture and all Mr Hahn can come up with is an implication. A question for Mr Hanh or indeed any apologist for Rome… why is it after a professed 2,000 years…why is it your church has not produced a definitive Bible commentary? Are we really left to the likes of Mr Hahn's vivid imagination?]

He didn't mean it figuratively. As I began to study this, I began to realized it's one thing to convince Presbyterians that being born again means being baptized, but how in the world could I possibly convince them that we actually have to eat His flesh and drink His blood?
[I know Roman Catholics get a little upset at this…but we do not speak to offend. In any situation where we meet with the thought of eating human flesh and drinking human blood… it is called cannibalism. Look it up in your dictionary. Protestants did not define the meaning of the word. It is a neutral word. The repulsion is not just a Presbyterian one or a Protestant one…it is human.]

I focused then a little bit more on the Lord's supper and communion. I discovered that Jesus had never used the word "covenant" in His public ministry. He saved the one time for when He instituted the Eucharist and he said, "This cup is the blood of the new covenant." If covenant means family, what is it that makes us family? Sharing flesh and blood. So if Christ forms a new covenant, that is a new family, what is He going to have to provide us with? New flesh and new blood.
[It is true that the people of God meet around the Lord's table. It is true that we partake in that which speaks of His flesh and blood i.e. the bread and the wine. But to suggest that we literally eat the literal body and drink the literal blood of Jesus Christ is a non starter. Click here for why the RC mass is repugnant to the word of God.]

I began to see why in the early Church for over 700 years, nobody any place disputed the meaning of Jesus' words. All of the early Church fathers without exception took Jesus' words at face value and believed and taught the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
[Before we demolish this…How can Mr Hahn calmly say, without blinking, that all the early Church Fathers (by which we assume that he means all who lived before the first 700 years) WITHOUT EXCEPTION took these words at face value i.e. literally? Has he read them all or is he just parroting some Roman theologian who couldn't care less whether he was telling the truth or not…so longs as the end justifies the means?
My weakest argument first… Two of the greatest Cardinals in the RC Church (Cajetan and Bellarmine) both expressly confessed that the doctrine of Transubstantiation was not founded on the word of God, but received from the Church. This obviously rules out John 6 as being interpreted as relating to the mass. So even high ranking Roman Catholics decline Mr Hahn's interpretation.

Every early Church Father took John 6 literally?  No way! In his treatise: Christian Doctrine (3:16) Augustine wrote: "If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man," says Christ, "and drink His blood, ye have no life in you." [John 6:53] This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us." For proof: CLICK HERE Do you agree with Augustine that Rome's interpretation which is literal enjoins a crime or a vice? What is that crime or vice envisaged by a literal reading? Exactly…that which Mr Hahn knew he would have trouble selling to the Presbyterians: cannibalism..]

I was scared; I didn't know who to turn to.
[Having jettisoned the Bible as central to the service of God, Mr Hahn now finds himself in a whirlpool. He is easy meat for the powers of darkness whose desire would have him embrace those doctrines of the Church of Rome.]

Then all of a sudden an episode occurred one night in a seminar I wasn't ready for. An ex-Catholic graduate student named John raised his hand. He had just finished a presentation for the seminar on the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent, you'll recall, was the Church's official response to Martin Luther and the Reformation. In about an hour and a half he had presented the Council of Trent in the most favorable light.
[What a warning for Bible colleges everywhere. Here are young men training for Presbyterian pulpits under this man Scott Hahn. What error is abounding here - were there no checks? Truly Jude's warning is as relevant today as it has always been…that certain men would creep in unawares denying the only Lord God (Jude 4)]

He had shown how many of their arguments were in fact based on the Bible.
[In his "Antidote to the Council of Trent" John Calvin goes through the decrees line by line. On a number of occasions, he simply replies "Amen" because what was decreed was in fact scriptural. We do not reject the teaching of this Council per se. We reject those bits which are unscriptural and we receive those parts which are clearly Biblical…not because the Pope and his henchmen taught them but because God has recorded them.]

Then he turned the tables on me. The students were supposed to ask him a question or two. He said, "Can I first ask you a question, Professor Hahn? You know how Luther really had two slogans, not just sola fide, but the second slogan he used to revolt against Rome was sola Scriptura, the Bible alone. My question is, 'Where does the Bible teach that?'" I looked at him with a blank stare. I could feel sweat coming to my forehead. I used to take pride in asking my professors the most stumping questions, but I never heard this one before.
[Really? Mt Hanhn tries to play two hands here. On one hand, he was a zealous Protestant protagonist at the coal face in the fight against Rome. On the other hand (like here) he was as naive as they come.]

And so I heard myself say words that I had sworn I'd never speak; I said, "John, what a dumb question." He was not intimidated. He look at me and said, "Give me a dumb answer."
[I wouldn't be intimidated either. It was a good reply on his part: Give me a dumb answer. Even though he already had one.]

I said, "All right, I'll try." I just began to wing it. I said, "Well, Timothy 3:16 is the key: 'All Scripture is inspired of God and profitable for correction, for training and righteousness, for reproof that the man of God may be completely equipped for every good work....'"
[Not the only text…See SUFFICENCY OF SCRIPTURE by Thomas Manton. 1 Timothy 3:16 is a good text however to turn to.]

He said, "Wait a second, that only says that Scripture is inspired and profitable; it doesn't say ONLY Scripture is inspired or even better, only Scripture's profitable for those things.
[What else does the Scripture say is inspired? If Rome is claiming that her traditions are inspired and equal to scripture…why can I not make claim for whatever takes my fancy? Why can I not make up the rules as I go along? This verse establishes that the Scripture is inspired and profitable for a number of things and is able to make the man of God perfect. If the Scripture - without mention of anything else - can make the man of God, then evidently he doesn't need anything else.]

We need other things like prayer,"
[Prayer without the Bible becomes mystical and purely subjective. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura does not rule out praying to God for light. However, just as we talk to God when we pray (assuming that we talk to him through Jesus Christ alone and not through wooden or luminous plastic idols etc.,) so God speaks to us through the Bible. This ex Catholic (really?) student is trying to pull asunder what God has joined together. This is not really an argument at all. There is no conflict if we mean New Testament prayer.]

and then he said, "What about 2 Thessalonians 2:15?" I said, "What's that again?" He said, "Well, there Paul tells the Thessalonians that they have to hold fast, they have to cling to the traditions that Paul has taught them either in writing or by word of mouth."
[Calvin rightly comments on this verse:
"Hold fast the institutions. Some restrict this to precepts of external polity; but this does not please me, for he points out the manner of standing firm. Now, to be furnished with invincible strength is a much higher thing than external discipline. Hence, in my opinion, he includes all doctrine under this term, as though he had said that they have ground on which they may stand firm, provided they persevere in sound doctrine, according as they had been instructed by him. I do not deny that the term parado>seiv is fitly applied to the ordinances which are appointed by the Churches, with a view to the promoting of peace and the maintaining of order, and I admit that it is taken in this sense when human traditions are treated of, (Matthew 15:6.) Paul, however, will be found in the next chapter making use of the term tradition, as meaning the rule that he had laid down, and the very signification of the term is general. The context, however, as I have said, requires that it be taken here to mean the whole of that doctrine in which they had been instructed. For the matter treated of is the most important of all—that their faith may remain secure in the midst of a dreadful agitation of the Church. Papists, however, act a foolish part in gathering from this that their traditions ought to be observed. They reason, indeed, in this manner—that if it was allowable for Paul to enjoin traditions, it was allowable also for other teachers; and that, if it was a pious thing to observe the former, the latter also ought not less to be observed. Granting them, however, that Paul speaks of precepts belonging to the external government of the Church, I say that they were, nevertheless, not contrived by him, but divinely communicated. For he declares elsewhere, (1 Corinthians 7:35,) that it was not his intention to ensnare consciences, as it was not lawful, either for himself, or for all the Apostles together. They act a still more ridiculous part in making it their aim to pass off, under this, the abominable sink of their own superstitions, as though they were the traditions of Paul. But farewell to these trifles, when we are in possession of Paul’s true meaning. And we may judge in part from this Epistle what traditions he here recommends, for he says—whether by word, that is, discourse, or by epistle. Now, what do these Epistles contain but pure doctrine, which overturns to the very foundation the whole of the Papacy, and every invention that is at variance with the simplicity of the Gospel?"
If we take the view that both the Scripture and her traditions are equally inspired…what do we do when we can show that [1] her traditions sometimes contradict one another and [2] especially when it can be shown that her traditions contradict the scripture? By claiming inspiration for her tradition - she effectively makes God either a liar or a fool.
If we believe that the Church Fathers, as forming part of tradition, are inspired…then was Augustine inspired to make the comments that he does above which rightly indict those who would interpret John 6:53 literally as criminal?
No man ever got his fingers burned with the word of God…but man's tradition is a different kettle of fish. Even Rome cannot handle it.]

Whoa! I wasn't ready. I said, "Well, let's move on with the questions and answers; I'll deal with this next week. Let's go on." I don't think they realized the panic I was in.
[There is nothing wrong with playing for time. We are not necessarily called to be gun slingers - quick on the draw - although it is good to be able to give a reason of the hope that is in us. 1 Peter 3:15. Having given one dumb answer…Mr Hahn wisely avoided - for the mean time - the giving of another.]

When I drove home that night, I was just staring up to the heavens asking God, why have I never heard that question?
[Never ever? Then you were never the mighty Protestant champion, you are trying to tell us you are.]

Why have I never found an answer?
[We are as baffled as you are. After all, Reformed books have been around for a long time. As indeed have been concordances etc.,]

The next day I began calling up theologians around the country, former professors. I'd ask them, "Where does the Bible teach sola Scriptura? Where does the Bible teach us that the Bible is our only authority?" One man actually said to me, "What a dumb question coming from you." I said, "Give me a dumb answer then." I was catching on. One professor whom I greatly respect, an Oxford theologian, said to me, "Scott, you don't expect to find the Bible proving sola Scriptura because it isn't something the Bible demonstrates. It is our assumption; it is our presupposition when we approach the Bible." That struck me as odd;
[I certainly wouldn't give an answer like that. It was more than an odd reply…it was positively erroneous. All it did was leave Mr Hahn the opportunity to say what he says in the next paragraph…]

I said, "But professor, that seems strange because what we are saying then is that we should only believe what the Bible teaches, but the Bible doesn't teach us to only believe what the Bible teaches. Our assumption isn't taught by the Bible." I said, "That feels like we're cutting off the branch that we're sitting on." Then he said, "Well what other options do we have?"
[Is this all that unnamed professor had to say? Had he never heard of Calvin or Hodge who have formulated sound replies to questions like these? God help Protestantism if these are its defenders! May God raise us up men who can meet Rome on any ground and expose her errors for what they really are.
The Necessity & Sufficiency of Scripture
What Do We Mean by Sola Scriptura?
Does the Bible Teach Sola Scriptura? ]

Good point, all right. Another friend, a theologian, called me and said, "Scott, what is this I'm hearing that you're considering the Catholic faith?" "Well, no, Art, I'm not really considering the Catholic faith." Then I decided to pose him a question. I said, "Art, what for you is the pillar and foundation of truth?" And he said, "Scott, for all of us Scripture is the pillar and foundation of truth."
[Another silly reply.]

I said, "Then why, Art, does the Bible say in 1 Timothy 3:15 that the pillar and foundation of truth is the church, the household of faith?"
[Some of these men really deserve Mr Hahn's replies.]

There was a silence and he said, "Well, Scott, I think you're setting me up with that question then."
[OK he got caught. Why didn't he do what Mr Hahn did in class…ask for time? Get the books out. Again Calvin puts well the teaching of the text:

"First, we ought to see why Paul adorns the Church with so magnificent a title. By holding out to pastors the greatness of the office, He undoubtedly intended to remind them with what fidelity, and industry, and reverence they ought to discharge it. How dreadful is the vengeance that awaits them, if, through their fault, that truth which is the image of the Divine glory, the light of the world, and the salvation of men, shall be allowed to fall! This consideration ought undoubtedly to lead pastors to tremble continually, not to deprive them of all energy, but to excite them to greater vigilance. Hence we may easily conclude in what sense Paul uses these words. The reason why the Church is called the "pillar of truth" is, that she defends and spreads it by her agency. God does not himself come down from heaven to us, nor does he daily send angels to make known his truth; but he employs pastors, whom he has appointed for that purpose. To express it in a more homely manner, is not the Church the mother of all believers? Does she not regenerate them by the word of God, educate and nourish them through their whole life, strengthen, and bring them at length to absolute perfection? For the same reason, also, she is called "the pillar of truth;" because the office of administering doctrine, which God hath placed in her hands, is the only instrument of preserving the truth, that it may not perish from the remembrance of men.

Consequently this commendation relates to the ministry of the word; for if that be removed, the truth of God will fall to the ground. Not that it is less strong, if it be not supported by the shoulders of men, as the same Papists idly talk; for it is a shocking blasphemy to say, that the word of God is uncertain, till it obtain from men what may be called a borrowed certainty. Paul simply means what he states elsewhere in other words, that since our "faith is by hearing," there will be no faith, unless there be preaching. (Romans 10:17) Accordingly in reference to men, the Church maintains the truth, because by preaching the Church proclaims it, because she keeps it pure and entire, because she transmits it to posterity. And if the instruction of the gospel be not proclaimed, if there are no godly ministers who, by their preaching, rescue truth from darkness and forgetfulness, instantly falsehoods, errors, impostures, superstitions, and every kind of corruption, will reign. In short, silence in the Church is the banishment and crushing of the truth. Is there anything at all forced in this exposition?

Having ascertained Paul’s meaning, let us return to the Papists. First, by applying this eulogium to themselves, they act wickedly; because they deck themselves with borrowed feathers. For, granting that the Church were elevated above the third heaven, I maintain that it has nothing to do with them in any manner. Nay, I even turn the whole passage against them; for, if the Church "is the pillar of truth," it follows that the Church is not with them, when the truth not only lies buried, but is shockingly torn, and thrown down, and trampled under foot. Is this either a riddle or a quibble? Paul does not wish that any society, in which the truth of God does not hold a lofty and conspicuous place, shall be acknowledged to be a Church; now there is nothing of all this in Popery, but only ruin and desolation; and, therefore, the true mark of a Church is not found in it. But the mistake arises from this, that they do not consider, what was of the greatest importance, that the truth of God is maintained by the pure preaching of the gospel; and that the support of it does not depend on the faculties or understandings of men, but rests on what is far higher, that is, if it does not depart from the simple word of God."

Rome makes a number of assumptions. One: She is the Church of whom the Apostle was speaking. If Paul were to return to earth today (or Peter for that matter) he would not recognise the Church of Rome. It's Pope and priests and all the trappings would be unknown to him. Secondly, Rome does not merely see herself as being the interpreter of the Bible, but as its mistress. The old cry is still defended to the hilt: "No Church…no Bible"
As Calvin points out…it is the work of the church to exalt the Bible. It is not the work of the church to sit in judgement over it.]

And I said, "Art, I feel like I'm being set up with lots of problems." He said, "Well, which church, Scott? There are lots of them." I said, "Art, how many churches are even applying for the job of being the pillar and foundation of truth? I mean, if you talk about a church saying, 'We're the pillar and foundation of truth; look to us and you will hear Christ speak and teach'? How many applicants for the job are there? I only know of one. I only know that the Roman Catholic Church teaches that it was founded by Christ; it's been around for 2000 years and it's making some outlandish claims that seem awfully similar to 1 Timothy 3:15."
[Mr Hahn let Rome hijack this verse. Every Bible believing Church can lay hold upon 1 Timothy 3:15 and apply it to themselves. Part of the matter is this. My church (the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster) does not constitute in itself the church of Christ, founded on the rock etc., We are just part of the Church. No one can exclude us, as long as we preach the Bible. This goes for any denomination. Rome, on the other hand, proclaims herself as the be all and end all. Rome does not merely see herself as another denomination…but the sole holder of the title: Church of Christ. My belief is that the Church as a whole (made up of every faithful denomination and believer constitutes the pillar and ground of truth) As long as we are elevating the word of God, we are fulfilling the role set forth in 1 Timothy 3:15]

Well, at this point I wasn't sure what to do. I got a phone call, though, one day from the chairman of the board of trustees at the seminar where I was teaching. Steve asked me out for lunch. I wasn't sure why. I thought, "Word has reached the chairman of the board that I'm teaching things that are perhaps somewhat Catholic." When I joined him for lunch, I was very scared and unsure. He proceeded to announce that the trustees had reached a unanimous decision. Because my classes were going so well, because so many people were signing up for my courses, they asked if I would consider becoming dean of the seminary at the ripe old age of 26. I couldn't believe it.
[Neither can I. My stomach is turning as I read it.]

He said, "We will let you teach the courses you want. We will let you hire faculty if you need them. We'll even pay for your doctoral program in theology." I said, "Where is there a doctoral program in theology nearby?" He said, "Catholic University."
[It gets worse, doesn't it? This is why God's word urges men to flee apostate institutions. How could any believer justify staying within an apostate grip like that?]

I thought, No, no, no. I don't want to study there; I'm fleeing that perspective at present." I really didn't say that to him because I didn't know what to say. In fact, he said, "Well, would you pray about it?" I said, "I will, but, Steve, I think I already know the answer. And oddly enough, I think I'm going to have to say no and I'm not going to be able to explain why because I'm not sure myself." When I got home, Kimberly was waiting for me. She said, "What did he want?" I said, "He asked me to become dean." "You're kidding!" I said, "No." "What did you say?" I said, "No." "I'm sorry, what did you say?" I said, "No." "Why did you say no?" I said, "Kimberly, because right now I'm not sure what I would teach. Right now I'm not sure what Scripture is teaching, and I know that someday I'm going to stand before Jesus Christ for judgment and it is not going to be enough for me simply to say, 'Well, Jesus, I just taught what I had been taught by my teachers.'
[This shows the danger of just accepting things - even truths - because someone we greatly admire or love has instructed us. We need to get ourselves completely rooted in scripture. Only then will we able to resist the icy blasts of Romanism or any of the other "isms" with which this sad world is afflicted.]

He has shown me things from Scripture that are true and I have got to be faithful to what He has shown me." She walked right over to me, threw her arms around me and gave me a big hug. Then she said, "Scott, that's what I love about you, that's why I married you, but, oh, we're going to have to pray then." She knew what it meant: It meant not only turning down this offer; it also meant resigning from a booming job as pastor of a growing church. I loved both opportunities.
[A little honesty in what has evidently been a period of great deceit. Truth is he ought never to have taken the position in the first place. From day one, he ought to have the common decency to have said that he was struggling with fundamental Protestant doctrine…although from what has been revealed of the denomination, it probably wouldn't have mattered much to them!]

***Administrative Assistant to the College President***
We didn't know what we were going to do. We were high and dry in July. After a lot of prayer, we decided we ought to move back to the college town where we met. When we moved back, I applied for a job at various places, but the college hired me as an administrator to be assistant to the president. For two years I worked there, and it was rather ideal because I worked during the day and it left me free in the evenings to pursue in-depth research. From around eight in the evening after putting our children down until around one or two in the morning, I would read and study and research. In two years time I had worked through several hundred books, and I began for the first time to read Catholic theologians and Scripture scholars.
[As indicated before…providing we are strong in the faith and discerning, we cannot say that it is wrong per se to read Romanist writers. But, on the other hand, if we are abandoning the word of God as Mr Hahn here is in the process of doing, then these men are ready to make mince meat out of him.]

And I was shocked at how impressive their insights were but even more, at how impressive their insights were which agreed with my own personal discoveries. I couldn't believe how many novel, innovative discoveries that I had come up with they were assuming and taking for granted, and it bothered me.
[Says it all doesn't it? "novel…innovative" A far cry from the "old paths" (Jeremiah 16:6) and the "ancient land marks" (Proverbs 22:28) - the new inventions of the Church of Rome.]

At times I'd come out and read sections to Kimberly and say, "Hear this, name the author." Because she was a theologian in a sense, and she was so busy with raising children that she really didn't have as much energy. But she would sit there listening in, and I would say, "Who do you think that was?" She said, "Wow! That sounds like one of your sermons down in Virginia. Oh, I miss those so much." I said, "That was Vatican II, Gaudium et Spes. That was the Catholic Church." She said, "Scott, I don't want to hear that." I said, "Kimberly, this stuff about liturgy is so exciting. I'm not certain, but I think God might be calling us to become Episcopalians." It's a halfway house. She looked at me and her eyes filled up with tears and she said, "Episcopalian!" She said, "I'm a Presbyterian, my father's a Presbyterian minister, my uncle's a Presbyterian minister, my husband was a Presbyterian minister, my brother wants to be one, and I thought about it myself.
[i.e. a Presbyterian minister herself.]

I don't want to be Episcopalian." She felt so abandoned at this moment, so betrayed. I remember that because a few months later after reading a lot more, one night I came out and said, "Kimberly, I'm not sure, but I'm beginning to think that God might be calling me to become a Roman Catholic." This look of desperation came over her. She said, "Couldn't we become Episcopalians? Anything but Catholic."
[This statement speaks volumes. On one hand we have the old fear of Romanism…once evident in every Protestant heart. Even the Episcopalians at one time were stoutly Protestant as witnessed by the 39 Articles of the Anglican Church (Click here for a defence of the 39 Articles) But on the other hand…what is her defence built on? Family relationships. Although these are strong ties…they are not enough. Nothing will keep the soul from any error except the word of God, hence David's prayer in Psalm 119:11: Thy word have I hid in mine heart that I might not sin against thee.]

You don't know what it's like, you cradle-Catholics. You just don't know the terror that comes over you when you think you might have to swim the Tiber, you might have to "Pope", as my friends put it. Well, she was getting so desperate. She began to pray for somebody to rescue her husband -- some professor, some theologian, some friend.

***Direct Journey to Catholicism***
Finally it happened. I got a call one day from Gerry, my best friend from seminary. A Phi Beta Kappa scholar in classics and New Testament Greek. He was the only other student at seminary along with me who held to the old Protestant belief that the Pope was the anti-Christ. We stood shoulder to shoulder opposing all the compromises we saw in our Protestant brethren. He talked to me one night on the phone. I read to him a passage from a book by Father Bouyer. He said, "Wow, that is rich and profound. Who wrote it?" I said, "Louis Bouyer." "Bouyer? I'd never heard of him, what is he?" "I said, "What do you mean?" "Well, is he a Methodist?" I said, "No." "Is he a Baptist?" "No." "I mean is he Lutheran? What is this, twenty questions? What is he?" I said, "Well, he's a Cath-----." "I'm sorry I missed that." I said, "He's Roman Cath-----." "Wait a second, there must be a bad connection, Scott. I thought you said he's Catholic." I said, "Gerry, I did say he's Catholic and he is Catholic, and I've been reading lots of Catholics." All of a sudden it started gushing out like Niagara Falls. I said, "I've been reading Danielou, and Ratzinger and de Lubac and Garrigou-Lagrange and Congar, and all these guys and man is it rich; you've got to read them, too." He said, "Slow down." He said, "Scott, your soul may be in peril."
[Prophetic words indeed…although as we will presently see, a good verse to consider is: 1 Corinthians 10:12"Let him that thinkieth he standeth, take heed lest he fall."]

I said, "Gerry, can I give you a list of titles?" He said, "Sure, I'll read them, anything to save you from this kind of trap. And I'll give you these titles." He mentioned to me about ten titles of anti- Catholic books.
[I must admit I do grow a little weary with this anti Catholic stuff. Anti Catholicism, Mr Hahn, anti Catholicism. This anti Catholic stuff borders on a classic case of paranoia. Bible Protestants do not hate Roman Catholics. We have no reason to hate Roman Catholics. Our theology teaches us that just as there was no difference between Jew and Greek for all have sinned (Romans 3:22-23) likewise between Protestants and Catholics. We do loath Roman Catholicism though. We loathe it because we perceive it to be an attack upon the key doctrines of the gospel. If I hate Roman Catholics (as is probably the perception of some as they review this web site) then why have I and my wife left family and friends behind to move to an overwhelming Roman Catholic country and seek to bring them the true gospel? Surely if we hated Roman Catholics, we would sit smugly back and leave them to their ruin?]

I said, "Gerry, I've read every single one of them, at least one or two times." He said, "Send me the list," and I sent it to him. About a month later, we arranged to have a long phone conversation. Kimberly couldn't have been more excited; at last a Phi Beta Kappa knight in shining armor coming to rescue her husband from the clutches of Romanism. So she was waiting with bated breath when the conversation was done, and I told her that Gerry's excited because he's reading all this stuff and he's really taking me seriously. She said, "Oh, great, I knew he would." Well, this went on for three or four months. We would talk on the phone, two, three, sometimes four hours long distance discussing theology and Scripture until three or four in the morning. Kimberly was so glad and grateful for him taking me so seriously. One night I came to bed around two or three; she was still up. The light was out, but she sat up in bed and said, "How's it going?" I said, "It's great." "Tell me about it." I said, "Gerry is almost intoxicated and excited about all the truth from Scripture that the Catholic Church puts forth."
[As we wrote above…let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall. It must be some experience learning that your God is contained in a little wafer and that there are a thousand mediators between you and Jesus, the only mediator between God and men. It must be wonderful learning that your Pope claims to be God on earth (Click here as proof) Intoxicating indeed!]

"WHAT!" I couldn't see her face, but I could almost feel it sink as she just slumped back down into bed, put her face into her pillow and began to sob. I couldn't even put my arm around her; she was just so wounded and abandoned. A little while later Gerry called and said, "Listen, I'm a little scared. My friends are a little scared. We ought to really take this seriously. I talked to Doctor John Gerstner, this Harvard-trained Presbyterian, anti-Catholic theologian.
[Just think…Mr Hahn is preaches this "Protestants are anti Catholic" stuff in Catholic Churches, possibly and probably to a lot of people. He puts this stuff in his books and audio tapes and video's and I have accessed it on the world wide web. When Protestant evangelists - door to door folk etc., - meet Roman Catholics…there is a mindset comes into play: You folk hate Catholics. Personally, I think it is a tactic by Rome to blur the issues and to keep their folk from even discussing the Bible.]

He will meet with us as long as we want." We arranged Gerry, Dr. Gerstner and me for a six hour session, going through the Old Testament in Hebrew, the New Testament in Greek, and the council documents of Church history. At the end of six hours, Gerry and I expected to be completely blown out of the water by this genius. Instead, what we discovered was that the Catholic Church almost doesn't even need a defense. It's more like a lion; just let it out of its cage and it takes care of itself.
[Funny isn't it…Spurgeon used this phrase concerning the Bible. Mr Hahn takes it from Spurgeon and applies it to the Roman Catholic Church.]
We just presented the Church's teachings and showed the text in Scripture, and we didn't feel like he had answered a single one of our questions or objections.
[I wonder what scripture Mr Hahn put forward for the mass? As mentioned above, two of the greatest Cardinals in the RC Church (Cajetan and Bellarmine) both expressly confessed that the doctrine of Transubstantiation was not founded on the word of God, but received from the Church. Or purgatory? Or that Mary is a mediatrix - whether officially or not - etc., Mr Hahn and his friend Gerry have drunk deeply of the wine of the wrath of her fornication (Revelation 18:3) The word intoxicated has already been used by Mr Hahn.]

In the end we were like, "Wow, what does this mean?" Neither of us knew. The most anti-Catholic seminarians wondering whether God might be a Catholic -- we were terrified.
[Certainly the god of Roman Catholicism is a Catholic - subject to the whims of the Pope]

Meanwhile, I sent an application off to Marquette University because I had heard they had a few really outstanding theologians who were based on the covenant who were studying the Church and doing lots of good things. Right before I heard back from them that I was accepted, and I got a scholarship, I began to visit a few priests in the area. I was scared. I'd do it at night so nobody would see me. I almost felt dirty and defiled stepping into the rectory. I'd sit down and finally get some questions out and, to a man, each priest would say to me, "Let's talk about something else besides theology."
[Why is this - to a man - ? Answer…the average RC priest has little or no knowledge of the word of God. Again…why is this? Answer…the word of God is not central to the RC Church. It is not a Biblical church. Its adherence to the Bible is shallow. The Bible is revered as a book i.e. as part of the ecclesiastical furniture - but not as the final authority which, as God's word, it demands. Surely this ought to have spoken to Mr Hahn? Or is part of the problem, the fact that he was in the process of leaving another denomination (PCUSA) where the word of God had likewise lost its central place?]

None of them wanted to discuss my questions. One of them actually said, "Are you thinking of converting? No, you don't want to do that. Ever since Vatican II we discourage that. The best thing you can do for the Church is just be a good Presbyterian minister."
[This sounds very noble. Obviously he doesn't mean: Just be a good Presbyterian minister and uphold those doctrines you vowed at your ordination to teach like justification by faith alone and the sufficiency of Holy Scripture etc., What he means is: Stay within and spread your doubts and influence as many people as you can. Ever since the Reformation, Rome has sought to infiltrate Protestant churches and bring them back to Rome. Certain men creeping in unaware (Jude 4)]

I said, "Wait a second, Father..." "No, just call me Mike." I said, "OK, Mike. I'm not asking you to break my arm and force me in. I think God is calling me." He said, "Well, if you want help from me, you've come to the wrong man." After three or four or five encounters like this, I was confused.
[Answer me this…would you like a men like that as your priest? They obviously hasn't got a clue. As Paul said "Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm." 1 Timothy 1:7]

I shared it with Kimberly. She said, "You've got to go to a Catholic school where you can study full time, where you can hear it from the horse's mouth, where you can make sure that the Catholic Church you believe in still exists." She had a good point. So after a lot of prayer and preparation, we moved to Milwaukee where I studied for two years full-time in their doctoral program. Those two years were the richest years of study I ever experienced and the richest time of prayer as well. I found myself in some seminars, though, where I was actually the lone Protestant defending the Church's teaching against the attacks coming from Catholics.
[I wonder what doctrines he was defending?]

It was weird. John Paul's teaching, for instance, which is so Scriptural and so "covenantal," I was explaining to these people. But there were a few good theologians who made so much sense out of it all. I really enjoyed the time. But something happened along the way, actually two things.
[The plot thickens…or in this case…the apostasy deepens…]

First, I began to pray a rosary. I was very scared to do this. I asked the Lord not to be offended as I tried.
[These are very low thoughts of God. He dares to enter into the holy place without any warrant from God. He reminds me of the priest I once heard on a radio "Thought for the day" slot who said that God even gave him grace when they (He and God) agreed to differ.]

I proceeded to pray…
[For the uninitiated…"paying the Rosary" is a prayer cycle whereby petitioner offers up some prayers. Some of the prayers are scriptural enough - the "Our Father" is what we Protestants would know as the "Lord's Prayer" as given in Luke 11:1-4. The "Glorias Patri" (Glory be to the Father) is not scripture quotation, but is very scriptural. Of course, we could query the overall wisdom of praying even scriptural prayers by rote. (This is not a peculiarly Roman phenomenon - the Anglicans go over and over them again. I speak as an ex Anglican.) The offensive prayer within the Rosary is the "Hail Mary" which tells us that Mary is "full of grace" and interpreted to mean that she can pray for sinners now and at the hour of their death. She is specifically sought in prayer to do so. In the "Rosary of the Blessed Virgin" which is divided into 15 small parts (called a "mystery") each part has one "Our Father" but TEN "Hail Marys" followed by a "Glorias Patri" Obviously the balance is tipped more for Mary.]

… and as I prayed I felt more in my heart what I came to know in my mind: I am a child of God. I don't just have God as my Father and Christ as my brother; I have His Mother for my own.
[Protestants too have the mother of Jesus as their own. She is part of the fellowship of the people of God world wide and in all ages. Part of the whole family in Heaven and in earth (Ephesians 3:15) But this is no warrant to pray to her or to exalt her above any one else.]

A friend of mine who had heard I was thinking about the Catholic Church called up one day and said: "Do you worship Mary like those Catholics do?" I said, "They don't worship Mary; they honor Mary."
[This is a play on words. Unfortunately this is not so. Although this may be her official position, yet her devotional manuals contain several claims where Mary possesses the attributes of deity. Alphonsus de Liguori in his blasphemous book The Glories of Mary, quotes favourably several pious people who teach that Mary is "omnipotent" (p.181-182 Tan edition) This leads the writer to claim further that God is subject to Mary's will (p. 179) and that it is impossible for God to deny her commands (p.626) and subsequently asks the question (which in Romans 8:31 is applied alone to God) "If Mary be for us, who can be against us?" (p.101) Elsewhere, it is claimed that the Lord Jesus said to Mary: "'Thou hast given me my human nature, and I will give thee my divine nature,' that is omnipotence…" (p216) Yet far from being rebuked or disciplined by Rome for such blasphemy, Liguori was elevated to being a Doctor of the Church and is lauded as one of her greatest saints! Actions will always speak louder than words.]

"Well, what's the difference?" I said, "Let me explain. When Christ accepted the call from His Father to become a man, He accepted the responsibility to obey the law, the moral law which is summarized in the Ten Commandments. There's a commandment which reads, 'Honor your father and mother.'" I said, "Chris, in the original Hebrew, that word "honor," kaboda, that Hebrew word means to glorify, to bestow whatever glory and honor you have upon your father and mother.
[It is not a blank cheque. We are to give to them the honour that they are due. This honour is to be regulated by the word of God. If they were, for instance, to stand in our way of coming to Christ…then we are to love Him more (Luke 14:26) If I effectively regarded my earthly father and mother as a god or goddess…I cannot claim Exodus 20:12 as a justification for doing so.]

Christ fulfilled that law more perfectly than any human by bestowing His glory upon His heavenly Father and by taking His own divine glory and honoring His Mother with it. All we do in the rosary, Chris, is to imitate Christ who honors His Mother with His own glory. We honor her with Christ's glory."
[There is no evidence in the Bible that Christ exalted His mother above any other believer. Certainly all women of the earth generations call her blessed (Luke 1:48) but then every child of God is blessed with all spiritual blessings (Ephesians 1:3)]

The second thing that happened was when I quietly slipped into the basement chapel down at Marquette, Gesu. They were having a noon Mass and I had never gone to Mass before. I slipped in. I sat down in the back pew. I didn't kneel. I didn't genuflect, I wouldn't stand. I was an observer; I was there to watch. But I was surprised when 40, 50, 60, 80, or 100 ordinary folk just walked in off the street for midday Mass, ordinary folk who just came in, genuflected, knelt and prayed. Then a bell rang and they all stood up and Mass began. I had never seen it before. The Liturgy of the Word was so rich, not only the Scripture readings. They read more Scripture, I thought, in a weekday Mass than we read in a Sunday service.
[Which speaks volumes about your Sunday services.]

But their prayers were soaked with Biblical language and phrases from Isaiah and Ezekiel. I sat there saying, "Man, stop the show, let me explain your prayers. That's Zechariah; that's Ezekiel. Wow! It's like the Bible coming to life and dancing out on the center stage and saying, "This is where I belong." Then the Liturgy of the Eucharist began. I watched and listened as the priest pronounced the words of consecration and elevated the host. And I confess, the last drop of doubt drained away at that moment. I looked and said, "My Lord and my God."
[To what? A wafer biscuit? This is rank idolatry. We may say "…the workman made it; therefore it [is] not God..." (Hosea 8:6) In my Wordsworth Dictionary of Phrase and Fable, the origin of the phrase Hocus Pocus is defined as follows:
"Words formerly uttered by conjurors when performing a trick: hence the trick or deception itself…The phrase dates from the early 17th century, and is the opening of a religious string of mock Latin used by the performer (Hocus pocus, toutos talonus, vade celerita jubes), the first two words possibly being a parody of the words of consecration in the Mass (Hoc est Corpus) while the remainder was reeled off to occupy the attention of the audience. Our word hoax is probably a contraction of hocus pocus, which also supplies the verb to hocus, to bamboozle, to cheat etc.," A mere man - and despite the claims of Rome that is all that he is…he is not another Jesus Christ (Click here) …but just a mere man - does not have the power to turn bread and wine into the literal body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. This truly is blasphemy of blasphemies.]

As the people began going forward to receive communion, I literally began to drool, "Lord, I want you. I want communion more fully with you. You've come into my heart. You're my personal Savior and Lord, but now I think You want to come onto my tongue and into my stomach, and into my body as well…
[And out into the draught as Jesus himself observed of meats: Mark 7:15. The blasphemy of it all is not mine, but Rome's.]

…as my soul until this communion is complete." And as soon as it began, it was over. People stuck around for a minute or two for thanksgiving and then left. And eventually, I just walked out and wondered, what have I done? But the next day I was back, and the next, and the next. I couldn't tell a soul. I couldn't tell my wife. But in two or three weeks I was hooked. I was head over heels in love with Christ and His Real Presence in the Blessed Sacrament. It became the source and the summit and the climax of each day, and I still couldn't tell anybody.
[Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led. (1Corinthians 12:1)]

Then one day Gerry called me on the phone. He'd been reading hundreds of books himself. He called to announce, "Leslie and I have decided that we're going to become Catholics this Easter, 1986." I said, "Now wait a second, Gerry. You were supposed to stop me from joining; now you think you're going to beat me to the table? This isn't fair." He said, "Listen, Scott, I don't know what objections or questions you've got left, but all of ours are answered." I said, "So are mine." He said, "Well, look, I'm not going to pray."
[Goodbye Gerry. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would [no doubt] have continued with us: but [they went out], that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. (1 John 2:19)]

When I hung up the phone, it occurred to me that delaying obedience for me was becoming almost like disobedience. God had made it so clear in Scripture on Mary, on the Pope,
[Bearing in mind that this is a relatively low key type message - a "popular" presentation as they say - Mr Hahn does not tell us what Scripture "God made it so clear in" about Mary or the Pope.]

even on Purgatory from 1 Corinthians 3:15 and following, on the saints as God's family, as my brothers and sisters in Christ.
[Ah! He does give a scripture reference. This time it is for purgatory. We are most happy to let the learned Calvin answer him here: "It remains, that we give an answer in passing to the Papists, who endeavor from this passage to prop up Purgatory. "The sinners whom God forgives, pass through the fire, that they may be saved." Hence they in this way suffer punishment in the presence of God, so as to afford satisfaction to his justice I pass over their endless fictions in reference to the measure of punishment, and the means of redemption from them, but I ask, who they are that pass through the fire? Paul assuredly speaks of ministers alone. "There is the same reason," they say, "as to all." It is not for us but for God to judge as to this matter. But even granting them this, how childishly they stumble at the term fire. For to what purpose is this fire, but for burning up the hay and straw, and on the other hand, for proving the gold and silver. Do they mean to say that doctrines are discerned by the fire of their purgatory? Who has ever learned from that, what difference there is between truth and falsehood? Farther, when will that day come that will shine forth so as to discover every one’s work? Did it begin at the beginning of the world, and will it continue without interruption to the end? If the terms stubble, hay, gold, and silver are figurative, as they must necessarily allow, what correspondence will there be between the different clauses, if there is nothing figurative in the term fire? Away, then, with such silly trifles, which carry their absurdity in their forehead, for the Apostle’s true meaning is, I think, sufficiently manifest."(Comments on 1 Corinthians 3:15)]

I was explaining to friends of mine how the Family of God is the master idea which makes sense out of all the Catholic faith. Mary's our mother,
[Again Mr Hahn reverts to his usual practice of not substantiating his statements from scripture. I assume that he would point us to John 19:27 where Jesus said to John from the Cross concerning Mary: "Behold thy mother" and to Mary: "Behold thy son" This, of course, was a practical matter…He honoured his mother (in accordance with Exodus 20:4-5) by seeing that she would be properly cared for. The silence of the rest of scripture concerning this would indicate to us that we are not to build upon this statement any other teaching - certainly not that gigantic edifice which Rome endeavours to build.]

the Pope is a spiritual father,
[Is he? Not according to Matthew 23:9 where in spiritual matters, we are to call no man our Father.]

the saints are like brothers and sisters, the Eucharist is a family meal, the feast days are like anniversaries and birthdays.
[The only day in Scripture we are commanded to observe is the Lord's Day. We are not bound to observe any other day and certainly have no authority to declare some of these days as fast days upon pain of committing sin in their non observance. Although this rule seems to be somewhat relaxed now…it was not always so. Rome has not repented of her sin in these matters.]

We are God's family. I'm not an orphan; I've got a home. I'm just not there yet. I began to ask the Lord, "What do you want me to do? Gerry's going to join. What do you want me to do?" And the Lord just turned the tables and said, "What do you want to do?" I said, "That's easy. I want to come home. I want to receive our Lord in the Holy Eucharist."
[i.e. I want to eat God. We examined the blasphemy of the Mass above]

And I just had this sense that the Lord was saying to me, "I'm not stopping you." So I thought, I'd better talk to the one person who wanted to. So I went downstairs and I said, "Kimberly, you'll never guess what Gerry and Leslie are planning to do." "What?" She had already given up hope at this point. "They're going to become Catholics this Easter, 1986." She looked at me and with insight - - she knows me so well and she still loves me -- she said, "So what? What difference does that make? You gave me your personal promise that you wouldn't join until 1990 at the earliest." I said, "Yeah, you remind of that; that's right, I did. But I could be dispensed from that if you felt..." "No, no, don't...." "Would you pray about it?" "Don't spiritualize away your promises, Scott." I said, "But Kimberly, you don't want to hear this, you don't want to read this, you don't want to discuss it. But for me to delay obedience to something that God has made so clear, it becomes disobedience." I knew Kimberly loved me enough to never allow me or pressure me to disobey my Lord and Savior.
[It seems almost cruel to mention this…but Rome once taught in her morality teaching that you didn't have to "keep faith with heretics" It was this teaching that enabled her to look John Huss straight in the eye and promise him safe passage to and from the Council of Constance and then arrest him on his arrival and murder him. Just an interesting comment on passing.]

She said, "I'll pray about it, but I have to tell you, I feel betrayed. I feel abandoned. I have never felt so alone in my life. All my dreams are dying because of this." But she prayed, and God bless her, she came back and she said, "This is the most painful thing in my life, in our marriage, but I think it's what God wants me to do."
[Prayer is a wonderful thing…but it is not the be all and end all. In prayer, we talk to God. In the Scriptures, God talks to us. To say on any matter "I think that this is what God wants me to do…" without any scripture is hardly reassuring. It wasn't what God wanted