Miles McKee Ministries
PO Box 541, Kingston Springs, TN 37082
Scott Hahn: The Man, the Myth and the Muddle.
By Miles McKee
By Miles McKee
The Scott Hahn story, the tale of the Presbyterian minister who converted to Romanism makes for wonderful reading, especially if you like fantasy and fiction. Mr. Hahn would have us believe that he is a true believer in search of truth, but his story (you can find it on the “Coming Home Network International” site) actually sets forth the spiritual journey of a seemingly unteachable and stubborn man.
Mr. Hahn portrays himself as a solemn seeker after truth and would have us believe that, having encountered a series of unanswerable questions; God, led him, so he claims through much prayer and study, to join the Roman church. He now embraces Mary as his spiritual mother and endorses prayers for the dead. He rejoices that he eats the actual flesh of the Savior, prays with beads and all the other Roman Catholic errors, which have no basis in Scripture.
His testimony begins with a tired and threadbare story of the young man, the pharmacist and his daughter. It is a harbinger of yet musty and well-worn fantasies to come. According to Mr. Hahn, although he was not very religious, he, while in High School, made a commitment and asked Jesus Christ into his heart. We may wonder, in light of later developments, just what kind of “Jesus Christ” it was that Mr. Hahn received into his heart. Of course, this theory of asking Jesus into the heart is standard fare nowadays for some of the evangelical community, but such a magic formula is a lie in face of biblical faith. True faith is trust in Jesus’ sacrificial death on the cross, as the only way of salvation. Mr. Hahn implies that he thinks that by his work of making a commitment to Christ he somehow secured salvation. So much for salvation being of the Lord! So much for Jesus being the only Savior! According to Mr. Hahn, his commitment and prayer saved him. But later revelations he gives about his faith raise questions about whether he ever really believed that salvation was by faith (by faith alone) in the finished work of Christ alone, or whether he ever really believed in Scripture alone being the final authority for faith and life.
Would to God that he had understood and confessed himself to be a hell-deserving sinner, and that he had responded to God’s command for repentance and had cried to the LORD to save him from the wrath to come! Would to Heaven, he had confessed himself a ruined sinner needing a righteousness which would satisfy the just demands of an offended and outraged holy God. Then he would have made it clear that Christ alone is uniquely fitted and qualified to be the Savior. But alas, Mr. Hahn at no time seems open to this truth that salvation is by Christ alone, by faith alone, as revealed by Scripture alone. Otherwise, any experience will do him.
The years passed by without much to note except a minor hiccup concerning the Bible believing position on contraception. This took on much theological significance for him. According to Hahn, his wife directed his reading and he began to see that, in marriage, the sex act was a renewal of the covenant and a moment of grace. According to Hahn, he discovered that God has designed the marital act to “show the life-giving power of love.” He saw that, in the marital covenant, the two become one, and God had designed it so that, when the two become one, they have a baby. This was taught to him by a Roman Catholic and seems to have begun the conscious rift between Mr. Hahn and Bible believing Christians. It seems to have escaped Mr. Hahn that many Bible believing Christians believe the same way. As one reads his story one has to wonder what kind of man he really was in those days: was he looking for reasons to be offended? On a related subject, he says Protestants changed their position on contraception. Even if this was the case for some Bible believing Christians, so what if they did? If changing one’s position on such a matter is such a dreadful thing, why then did he join a religion that one day says we cannot eat meat on Friday, under pain of mortal sin and damnation, and later says we can. Talk about changing your position: one day Mass must be said in Latin; later Latin was out and English was in! So much for the Church of Rome being place to find consistency!
The next major thing he does is to join together with those who called into question the doctrine of Sola Fide (faith alone). Apparently, he discovered Luther's conception of justification was very limited and restricted. It had lots of truth, but it, according to him, also missed lots of truths. He then pursued his studies and discovered there was a family aspect of covenant and that the legal aspect of covenant was not really a major part of salvation. The legal aspect of salvation is the Scriptural truth that shows that Jesus Christ bore our sins as a wrath offering, where our sins are legally imputed to Christ, and Christ’s righteousness is legally credited to us. For example, “For He hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.” (2 Corinthians 5:21)
Where do we start with this man? He loves to pick and chose who he wants God to be. Of course God is a Father but God cannot abandon His holiness just to act like one. Of course He is love but He has wrath. He is the Just God who has settled the sin question in the gracious gift of His Son. How did Hahn miss this? Was his education and study of the Bible so deficient that he failed to notice this entirely?
He then tells us that he discovered there were some very significant gaps in Luther and Calvin’s teachings and thus concluded that Sola Fide was entirely wrong. After all, according to Mr. Hahn, the Bible never actually says, “faith alone”. How strange it is that the Bible neither has a verse that says God is a trinity but doubtless Hahn believes in one triune God. He doubtless would argue that the Trinity, while not directly taught, is inferred and clearly discerned. How is it then that he allows for the Trinity but at the same time, by the same rules of Bible interpretation, disallows Sola Fide?
An unteachable man is Mr. Hahn,
His exegesis shot
He runs to Rome with cap in hand
A scholar he is not
He then goes on to make the classic Papal error of confusing faith with the fruit of faith, and is now on a headlong gallop to apostasy from biblical faith. He, at least, is astute enough to know that if one rejects Sola Fide one has rejected biblical faith. Would that more Bible believing Christians knew that!
The next thing our modern day Don Quixote does is to accept a pastorate in Virginia. On arrival at his new charge he began to spread the glad tidings of covenant (as understood by him). In doing so, he went to work correcting the church’s misunderstanding of covenant as a contract, and began showing them that covenant means family. Earlier in his quest there actually was a time he agreed that legal justification was part of salvation but that it just didn’t go far enough. Now he has entirely dropped the forensic aspect. By this stage he has rejected Sola Fide (by faith alone) and forensic justification. He already is a Roman Catholic in heart and affection yet is still prepared to deceive and mislead his listeners into thinking he is a Protestant. A thousand points for guile; zero for integrity. Of course another possibility exists which Mr. Hahn is not mentioning, and that is that this church had already lost the Gospel and accepted a fellow blind man to lead and guide them.
He then suggested to the church that they ought to have communion as a family meal. He tells us that he even used the word "Eucharist."
Mr. Hahn, as top of his class, would have of course known that the word 'Eucharist' means 'thanksgiving'. This is not an objectionable concept. However, Mr. Hahn would also have known that Eucharist means something entirely different to the Church of Rome. Rome teaches that 'the Eucharist is the Sacrament of the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ under the appearance of bread and wine’. Mr. Hahn, it seems, was already a convinced, yet closet papist, who had abandoned—or never understood—Sola Fide (salvation by faith along). It seems he is herding his people rapidly towards the Papal idea of the Eucharist. He infers that the introduction of the word Eucharist was something of a clandestine act---if he was merely using it to mean thanksgiving then there would be nothing underhanded about introducing this terminology.
Mr. Hahn then suggests to his church, "Maybe we ought to celebrate being God's covenant-family by communion each week.” However, Mr. Hahn misses the point of communion. Communion, though a communal meal, is never seen in Scripture as a celebration of family. It is a remembrance of Christ and the cross. However since Hahn, by this stage, is well on the way to throwing out the authority of the scriptures, we ought not to be surprised that he wasn’t bothered by a lack of Biblical authority for his actions.
I can only imagine that Mr. Hahn must have felt a great deal of frustration at these weekly communion services as he was not endued with the power to command the bread and wine to become the actual body and blood of Christ. That power was a secret reserved only for the Pope’s priests. They alone have the ability to call God off his throne and transform Him into a wafer and cup of wine! David Copperfield, eat your heart out!
He then suggested that their meetings, instead of being sermon centered, should be Eucharist centered. Yes of course, I must have missed that commission… “Go ye therefore into all the world and celebrate communion.” But our stout hearted Mr. Hahn won’t let a small matter like truth interrupt him. This man is bound and determined to implement his agenda. He’s already in Rome’s camp, yet he continues to try to persuade us that he was fighting his conversion to Rome all the way. By the way, preaching should be the heart of the worship service. It is God’s chosen method of advancing His cause and strengthening His family for we read, “It pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save those that believe” (1Cor 1:21). Mr. HAHN, HOWEVER, SEEMS TO HAVE EXCHANGED THE FOOLISHNESS OF PREACHING FOR FOOLISH PREACHING! Mr. Hahn would have done well to listen to William Tiptaft who warned, “--as you bring your carnal reason and human learning to judge of spiritual things, they will profit you nothing. Except the Lord give you a teachable and childlike spirit, the preaching of the cross must be foolishness to you” (1 Corinthians 1:18)
The next thing we encounter is Mr. Hahn teaching at a Protestant Seminary. Here he almost takes the mask off as he begins to teach baptismal regeneration. He says, the “disciples went about baptizing. I taught that being born again is a covenant act, a sacrament, a covenant renewal involving baptism. Imagine dragging poor unsuspecting infants into a ritual and later telling them the ritual saved them. Coercion at its best! But coercion is Rome’s field of expertise.
He at this stage has rejected Sola Fide, and has, to all intents and purposes, adopted the Roman Catholic view of the Lord’s Table and has embraced baptismal regeneration. Yet all the while he’s being paid to uphold Protestant truth at a Protestant seminary. Again, a thousand points for guile, zero points for integrity! Why did he not just get honest and join the Papal communion then? Was it that he was getting his bread buttered by Bible believing Christians and that he stayed in their ranks for financial considerations? But no, Mr. Hahn would have us believe that he is a noble soul who all the while is wrestling with these great and weighty issues. Lies and damned lies! His mind is already made up; he just wants to make himself look good in his reader’s eyes.
Mr. Hahn portrays himself as a solemn seeker after truth and would have us believe that, having encountered a series of unanswerable questions; God, led him, so he claims through much prayer and study, to join the Roman church. He now embraces Mary as his spiritual mother and endorses prayers for the dead. He rejoices that he eats the actual flesh of the Savior, prays with beads and all the other Roman Catholic errors, which have no basis in Scripture.
His testimony begins with a tired and threadbare story of the young man, the pharmacist and his daughter. It is a harbinger of yet musty and well-
Would to God that he had understood and confessed himself to be a hell-
The years passed by without much to note except a minor hiccup concerning the Bible believing position on contraception. This took on much theological significance for him. According to Hahn, his wife directed his reading and he began to see that, in marriage, the sex act was a renewal of the covenant and a moment of grace. According to Hahn, he discovered that God has designed the marital act to “show the life-
The next major thing he does is to join together with those who called into question the doctrine of Sola Fide (faith alone). Apparently, he discovered Luther's conception of justification was very limited and restricted. It had lots of truth, but it, according to him, also missed lots of truths. He then pursued his studies and discovered there was a family aspect of covenant and that the legal aspect of covenant was not really a major part of salvation. The legal aspect of salvation is the Scriptural truth that shows that Jesus Christ bore our sins as a wrath offering, where our sins are legally imputed to Christ, and Christ’s righteousness is legally credited to us. For example, “For He hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.” (2 Corinthians 5:21)
Where do we start with this man? He loves to pick and chose who he wants God to be. Of course God is a Father but God cannot abandon His holiness just to act like one. Of course He is love but He has wrath. He is the Just God who has settled the sin question in the gracious gift of His Son. How did Hahn miss this? Was his education and study of the Bible so deficient that he failed to notice this entirely?
He then tells us that he discovered there were some very significant gaps in Luther and Calvin’s teachings and thus concluded that Sola Fide was entirely wrong. After all, according to Mr. Hahn, the Bible never actually says, “faith alone”. How strange it is that the Bible neither has a verse that says God is a trinity but doubtless Hahn believes in one triune God. He doubtless would argue that the Trinity, while not directly taught, is inferred and clearly discerned. How is it then that he allows for the Trinity but at the same time, by the same rules of Bible interpretation, disallows Sola Fide?
An unteachable man is Mr. Hahn,
His exegesis shot
He runs to Rome with cap in hand
A scholar he is not
He then goes on to make the classic Papal error of confusing faith with the fruit of faith, and is now on a headlong gallop to apostasy from biblical faith. He, at least, is astute enough to know that if one rejects Sola Fide one has rejected biblical faith. Would that more Bible believing Christians knew that!
The next thing our modern day Don Quixote does is to accept a pastorate in Virginia. On arrival at his new charge he began to spread the glad tidings of covenant (as understood by him). In doing so, he went to work correcting the church’s misunderstanding of covenant as a contract, and began showing them that covenant means family. Earlier in his quest there actually was a time he agreed that legal justification was part of salvation but that it just didn’t go far enough. Now he has entirely dropped the forensic aspect. By this stage he has rejected Sola Fide (by faith alone) and forensic justification. He already is a Roman Catholic in heart and affection yet is still prepared to deceive and mislead his listeners into thinking he is a Protestant. A thousand points for guile; zero for integrity. Of course another possibility exists which Mr. Hahn is not mentioning, and that is that this church had already lost the Gospel and accepted a fellow blind man to lead and guide them.
He then suggested to the church that they ought to have communion as a family meal. He tells us that he even used the word "Eucharist."
Mr. Hahn, as top of his class, would have of course known that the word 'Eucharist' means 'thanksgiving'. This is not an objectionable concept. However, Mr. Hahn would also have known that Eucharist means something entirely different to the Church of Rome. Rome teaches that 'the Eucharist is the Sacrament of the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ under the appearance of bread and wine’. Mr. Hahn, it seems, was already a convinced, yet closet papist, who had abandoned—or never understood—Sola Fide (salvation by faith along). It seems he is herding his people rapidly towards the Papal idea of the Eucharist. He infers that the introduction of the word Eucharist was something of a clandestine act-
Mr. Hahn then suggests to his church, "Maybe we ought to celebrate being God's covenant-
I can only imagine that Mr. Hahn must have felt a great deal of frustration at these weekly communion services as he was not endued with the power to command the bread and wine to become the actual body and blood of Christ. That power was a secret reserved only for the Pope’s priests. They alone have the ability to call God off his throne and transform Him into a wafer and cup of wine! David Copperfield, eat your heart out!
He then suggested that their meetings, instead of being sermon centered, should be Eucharist centered. Yes of course, I must have missed that commission… “Go ye therefore into all the world and celebrate communion.” But our stout hearted Mr. Hahn won’t let a small matter like truth interrupt him. This man is bound and determined to implement his agenda. He’s already in Rome’s camp, yet he continues to try to persuade us that he was fighting his conversion to Rome all the way. By the way, preaching should be the heart of the worship service. It is God’s chosen method of advancing His cause and strengthening His family for we read, “It pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save those that believe” (1Cor 1:21). Mr. HAHN, HOWEVER, SEEMS TO HAVE EXCHANGED THE FOOLISHNESS OF PREACHING FOR FOOLISH PREACHING! Mr. Hahn would have done well to listen to William Tiptaft who warned, “-
The next thing we encounter is Mr. Hahn teaching at a Protestant Seminary. Here he almost takes the mask off as he begins to teach baptismal regeneration. He says, the “disciples went about baptizing. I taught that being born again is a covenant act, a sacrament, a covenant renewal involving baptism. Imagine dragging poor unsuspecting infants into a ritual and later telling them the ritual saved them. Coercion at its best! But coercion is Rome’s field of expertise.
He at this stage has rejected Sola Fide, and has, to all intents and purposes, adopted the Roman Catholic view of the Lord’s Table and has embraced baptismal regeneration. Yet all the while he’s being paid to uphold Protestant truth at a Protestant seminary. Again, a thousand points for guile, zero points for integrity! Why did he not just get honest and join the Papal communion then? Was it that he was getting his bread buttered by Bible believing Christians and that he stayed in their ranks for financial considerations? But no, Mr. Hahn would have us believe that he is a noble soul who all the while is wrestling with these great and weighty issues. Lies and damned lies! His mind is already made up; he just wants to make himself look good in his reader’s eyes.
He then addresses his “discovery” of John Chapter 6 where Jesus says we must eat his flesh and drink his blood. This is so tired that it almost laughable. Poor Mr. Hahn, no one can help him here. No Protestant scholarship existed to help him through this. According to Mr. Hahn, Jesus advocated Cannibalism and that is why the people got offended! Hey, who would blame them? Mr. Hahn seems never to have heard of the Jewish notion of ‘Eating the days of Messiah’….a term, which spoke of total identification! He obviously didn’t want to believe this. He has already departed from the faith—that is, if he was ever in it in the first place! And of course, Mr. Hahn had never heard of R.L. Dabney, the great Presbyterian scholar who clarified John 6 by rightly pointing out,
“---that it applies not to the Lord's Supper, but to the spiritual actings of faith on Christ figuratively described. For the Lord's Supper was not yet instituted; and it is absurd to suppose that our Savior would use language necessarily unintelligible to all His followers, the subject never having been divulged to them. On the contrary, in verse 35, we find that the coming and eating is defined as the actings of faith. If the chapter be forced into an application to the Supper, then verses 53 and 54 explicitly teach that every one who eats the Supper goes to heaven, and that no one who fails to eat it does; neither of which Rome admits; And in verse 63, our Savior fixes a figurative and spiritual interpretation of His words, beyond all question.”
Mr. Hahn seems bound and determined to believe the full batch of Papal absurdities. No one can reach him at this stage but it gets worse. He now becomes convinced of the Real Presence and tells us that,
“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. I was scared...”
He fails to mention that Rome did not adopt the Real Presence error until the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. And that it was not finally sanctioned until the Council of Trent in 1551.
For the Roman Catholic, the ‘Real Presence’ error is vital to swallow. For them, the Mass is fundamental and necessary for salvation because they believe the wafer and wine become the actual body and blood of the Savior. Roman Catholics must hold to the Real Presence because it helps establish the lie that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church. Accordingly, we need her for salvation because only her priests have the power to turn the bread and wine into the body and blood of our Lord. We are thus left in dependence, not on Christ alone but on the Pope of Rome and his appointed deputies. Isn’t it wonderful to know we are in such safe and pure hands!
For Rome, the Mass is a true, propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead. Once a person buys into this teaching, they have denied that Christ has finished His work at Calvary and they have made the Christ who declared, IT IS FINISHED, into a liar. That Christ finished the work is beyond dispute. Arthur Pink reminds us,
“God has furnished at least four proofs that Christ did finish the work which was given him to do. First, in the rending of the veil, which showed that the way to God was now open. Second, in the raising of Christ from the dead, which evidenced that God had accepted his sacrifice. Third, the exaltation of Christ to his own right hand, which demonstrated the value of Christ’s work and the Father’s delight in his person. Fourth, the sending to earth of the Holy Spirit to apply the virtues and benefits of Christ’s atoning death.”
Mr. Hahn never seems to have grasped that the work indeed is finished!
The next thing Mr. Hahn encounters is a dispute concerning “Sola Scriptura.” Sola Scriptura simply means that all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual growth is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture.
A student, however, challenged him and he found himself unable to defend it from the Scriptures. He then concluded that the Bible nowhere teaches Sola Scriptura.
Can we take this man seriously? He claims to never have had to face a challenge about Sola Scriptura and when it came, he didn’t know how to handle it. (Of course he couldn’t defend it if it didn’t fit his belief system.) Furthermore he phoned theologians across the country and not one of them could give an answer. This is beginning to sound as plausible as Dan Brown’s “Da Vinci Code.”
What kind of scholarship does he expect us to believe was the norm in his seminary? So no one had ever heard of or read Sola Scriptura by A.A Hodge, or The Protestant Rule of Faith by Charles Hodge, or The Scriptures Sufficient Without Unwritten Tradition by Thomas Manton, or any of the myriads of more recent works defending Sola Scriptura? What were they doing with their time at that seminary…playing games? Mr. Hahn would have us believe that these great questions he was facing had never been asked before. Either he is delusional or disingenuous or maybe just disgruntled.
Hahn says he is big into covenant. If he really is, he ought not to have missed the significance of God’s attitude towards His Word and the place it was to hold in the behavior of His covenant people. He ought to have known that the Lord Himself was the originator of Sola Scriptura.
How did he miss that God gave the law to Moses, in written form, and declared that His words were not to be tampered with or added to. His Word was to be the final authority in all matters of faith and practice. Had he not read where the Lord said, "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.” (Deuteronomy 4:2). Furthermore, the Lord declared, “….the scripture cannot be broken.” (John 10:35) and, “Sanctify them through Thy truth: Thy word is truth.” (John. 17:17) This is Sola Scriptura. Yet not one of Hahn’s professor friends knew this? A likely story!
Neither had any one of his connection of theologians, it seems, ever read, “Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.”
(Proverbs 30:6). Or "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them" (Isaiah 8:20). Does Mr. Hahn really expect us to buy into this fantasy that he never truly knew about Sola Scriptura?
And not one of his studies ever unearthed Mark 7:6-9, where Jesus warned about adding traditions of men to the Word. Our Savior said to them:
“Well has Isaiah prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, this people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things you do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.”
This scripture should have warned him full well of Rome’s deceitful practice of exalting the traditions of men to equal place with the Bible.
Yet in spite of the clear evidence that the Lord himself established the principle of Sola Scriptura, it seems that Mr. Hahn, after his years of diligent study, did not know this? What was he studying—Alice in Wonderland? And are we to believe that no one of his class or among his professors was aware that Sola Scriptura came directly from God and is clearly demonstrated in the Bible? I think the more likely story is that Hahn rejected the plain truth. There are none so blind as they who will not see. Of course, anyone wishing to throw off the restraints of the Word would of a necessity reject Sola Scriptura. This is why Rome refuses the authority of the Scripture because with its shackles gone she can promote her death doctrines of the Mass, Mary the Mediatrix, prayers for the dead, indulgences and any other money spinner she wished to add.
When we hold to Sola Scriptura we are declaring the sufficiency of Scripture as our supreme authority in all spiritual matters. The Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are, as the Shorter Catechism says, “The only rule given to direct us how we may glorify God and enjoy Him forever.”
As, already stated, Sola Scriptura simply means that all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual growth is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture. But, Sola Scriptura also means that Scripture is the believer’s
NEXT PAGE
“-
Mr. Hahn seems bound and determined to believe the full batch of Papal absurdities. No one can reach him at this stage but it gets worse. He now becomes convinced of the Real Presence and tells us that,
“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. I was scared...”
He fails to mention that Rome did not adopt the Real Presence error until the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. And that it was not finally sanctioned until the Council of Trent in 1551.
For the Roman Catholic, the ‘Real Presence’ error is vital to swallow. For them, the Mass is fundamental and necessary for salvation because they believe the wafer and wine become the actual body and blood of the Savior. Roman Catholics must hold to the Real Presence because it helps establish the lie that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church. Accordingly, we need her for salvation because only her priests have the power to turn the bread and wine into the body and blood of our Lord. We are thus left in dependence, not on Christ alone but on the Pope of Rome and his appointed deputies. Isn’t it wonderful to know we are in such safe and pure hands!
For Rome, the Mass is a true, propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead. Once a person buys into this teaching, they have denied that Christ has finished His work at Calvary and they have made the Christ who declared, IT IS FINISHED, into a liar. That Christ finished the work is beyond dispute. Arthur Pink reminds us,
“God has furnished at least four proofs that Christ did finish the work which was given him to do. First, in the rending of the veil, which showed that the way to God was now open. Second, in the raising of Christ from the dead, which evidenced that God had accepted his sacrifice. Third, the exaltation of Christ to his own right hand, which demonstrated the value of Christ’s work and the Father’s delight in his person. Fourth, the sending to earth of the Holy Spirit to apply the virtues and benefits of Christ’s atoning death.”
Mr. Hahn never seems to have grasped that the work indeed is finished!
The next thing Mr. Hahn encounters is a dispute concerning “Sola Scriptura.” Sola Scriptura simply means that all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual growth is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture.
A student, however, challenged him and he found himself unable to defend it from the Scriptures. He then concluded that the Bible nowhere teaches Sola Scriptura.
Can we take this man seriously? He claims to never have had to face a challenge about Sola Scriptura and when it came, he didn’t know how to handle it. (Of course he couldn’t defend it if it didn’t fit his belief system.) Furthermore he phoned theologians across the country and not one of them could give an answer. This is beginning to sound as plausible as Dan Brown’s “Da Vinci Code.”
What kind of scholarship does he expect us to believe was the norm in his seminary? So no one had ever heard of or read Sola Scriptura by A.A Hodge, or The Protestant Rule of Faith by Charles Hodge, or The Scriptures Sufficient Without Unwritten Tradition by Thomas Manton, or any of the myriads of more recent works defending Sola Scriptura? What were they doing with their time at that seminary…playing games? Mr. Hahn would have us believe that these great questions he was facing had never been asked before. Either he is delusional or disingenuous or maybe just disgruntled.
Hahn says he is big into covenant. If he really is, he ought not to have missed the significance of God’s attitude towards His Word and the place it was to hold in the behavior of His covenant people. He ought to have known that the Lord Himself was the originator of Sola Scriptura.
How did he miss that God gave the law to Moses, in written form, and declared that His words were not to be tampered with or added to. His Word was to be the final authority in all matters of faith and practice. Had he not read where the Lord said, "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.” (Deuteronomy 4:2). Furthermore, the Lord declared, “….the scripture cannot be broken.” (John 10:35) and, “Sanctify them through Thy truth: Thy word is truth.” (John. 17:17) This is Sola Scriptura. Yet not one of Hahn’s professor friends knew this? A likely story!
Neither had any one of his connection of theologians, it seems, ever read, “Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.”
(Proverbs 30:6). Or "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them" (Isaiah 8:20). Does Mr. Hahn really expect us to buy into this fantasy that he never truly knew about Sola Scriptura?
And not one of his studies ever unearthed Mark 7:6-
“Well has Isaiah prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, this people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things you do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.”
This scripture should have warned him full well of Rome’s deceitful practice of exalting the traditions of men to equal place with the Bible.
Yet in spite of the clear evidence that the Lord himself established the principle of Sola Scriptura, it seems that Mr. Hahn, after his years of diligent study, did not know this? What was he studying—Alice in Wonderland? And are we to believe that no one of his class or among his professors was aware that Sola Scriptura came directly from God and is clearly demonstrated in the Bible? I think the more likely story is that Hahn rejected the plain truth. There are none so blind as they who will not see. Of course, anyone wishing to throw off the restraints of the Word would of a necessity reject Sola Scriptura. This is why Rome refuses the authority of the Scripture because with its shackles gone she can promote her death doctrines of the Mass, Mary the Mediatrix, prayers for the dead, indulgences and any other money spinner she wished to add.
When we hold to Sola Scriptura we are declaring the sufficiency of Scripture as our supreme authority in all spiritual matters. The Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are, as the Shorter Catechism says, “The only rule given to direct us how we may glorify God and enjoy Him forever.”
As, already stated, Sola Scriptura simply means that all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual growth is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture. But, Sola Scriptura also means that Scripture is the believer’s
NEXT PAGE