Rome Sweet Home? (Part 2)
I offer to my readers in this article a response to several of the points made by Scott Hahn as her entered Rome from the Presbyterian church.
He has left, I believe the wrong impressions in people's minds in the search for truth: First he says that there is a distinction between being a Christian and becoming a Catholic.
So do I, for that matter! But in fact the Scripture makes no such class distinctions of the body.
Those who call on the name of the Lord are saved.
Those saved are added to His Body.
Where does all the rest come from? There is only one church, and he became a part of it when his life was changed.
Scottsays that Luther had convinced himthat Catholics believed they were saved by their works.
No, a trip through the Canon Law will convince one of that.
From the proscribed form and administrator of baptism which Rome says "incorporates" a person into Christ (regardless of age and thus of awareness of what is going on), all the way to the dying rites, a "Roman citizen" is shackled with the traditions of men which he must perform to work out his salvation.
Regarding infant baptism.
It is actually impossible to conceive of an infant being baptized.
All media and artwork aside, certainly all know the meaning of the Greek word baptizo.
"Dip, plunge, immerse...
"It is the Biblical picture of a burial of the old person we were before Christ.
It is a submission to the very death of the old person in us.
Both physically and spiritually the baptism of an infant is impossible! But Presbyterianism, only one generation removed from Romanism, paved the way for Scott to believe in this teaching.
Thank God that Calvin and others saw enough to escape Rome.
But God calls us to keep escaping all that is not of God.
We must continue holding to the pure words of Scripture, in spite of the fact that in the last days many shall depart from the faith, many will not endure sound teaching.
I hear that Mr.
Hahn read everything he could get his hands on,about infant baptism.
But the Bible? Was that not enough? If he met silence there, is even that silence not enough to tell him something? We know we are to allow little ones to come to Christ, that we are to nourish and cherish them.
Perhaps follow the Old Testament pattern of dedication.
Where is anything else hinted at? Here is where God is silent and men talk a lot.
It would seem that Scott Hahn listened to what they said, and built his theology from that.
Covenant theology.
He obviously made a meaningful discovery regarding the covenants of the Bible.
But to jump from "I discovered...
" to "I decided," and then, "I determined " to build a whole system of interpretation and theology...
Well, I think that may have been a decision not of God.
Most roads outside the Word do lead to Rome, One road does not.
The road that does not is the simple belief of every Word of God, without an intricate theological bias binding it all together.
His wife seemed to submit to the Scriptures in the area of female leadership in the church.
The apostle Paul is very clear in this regard.
I sense though a veritable explosion coming from within Rome.
Soon the tide of ecumenicity will break upon the Vatican and push away its male domination.
Whence will such "new teaching" come to the church which is "semper eadem.
"? From the same place that brought the assumption of Mary, for example, into vogue.
A little trick known as the "piety of the people.
" Which, interpreted from Catholic speak means, the power of politics in the inner workings of the Roman system.
Regarding his argument concerning contraception.
I fully agree that to tamper with life that begins in the very mind of God (Psalm 139) is serious business.
And I believe it because God said it, not because Rome did.
This is not a Catholic Protestant issue.
This is a Biblical truth.
About saving faith.
Can anyone read the book of Romans, and Galatians, and still feel there is anything a person can do to earn his salvation? He has misrepresented the Protestant position by referring to Luther's searchings, which though for his day was earth shattering, for ours is not satisfying.
Remember he had a harsh mother (Rome), and did the best he could! Scott of all people should appreciate the time needed to reach mature thinking in these areas.
No true Protestant denies the need for works following one's salvation! These works, according to James, are the proof that we have true faith! But it is that faith that brings us into right relation to God, and the grace of God that gave us that faith! How can I know that a person has received the grace of God? His works! But shall this same man earn merit before God for those works? Anathema to such a thought.
Who can earn anything from God? Salvation is a free gift! Paul and James agree perfectly in the text to be quoted from the Old Testament.
They both say that Abraham believed God and it was accounted (or imputed) to him for righteousness.
In his haste to quote James 2:24, he omitted James 2:23.
James sees faith and the works that flow from it as one package, as body and spirit, but never denies that it is faith that brings the original imputation of righteousness, or right standing before God.
I feel he has been misled here, for his statements, on the surface, bring a man to ask what he can do beyond faith, to be saved.
The question we discuss was asked and answered in Scripture on more than one occasion.
The answer to those who already had faith rising in their hearts is given in Acts 2:38.
Repent! Be Baptized! And to one about to commit suicide, the answer is simply, "Believe on Jesus...
" Whenever a man senses he is "working" to "earn" his salvation, he needs to read Hebrews, and enter into God's rest.
There simply is no work required for our salvation.
Christ paid the price.
It is finished! What good news! Judaizers, Romanizers, take note.
Your Gospel is no Gospel.
And Paul says that anyone attempting to preach such a thing is accursed.
With Mr.
Hahn, nice sounding logic and theological words confuse an issue.
He talks about the "old (covenant) flowing into the new," and the new as the fulfillment, rather than the abandonment, of the Old.
That sounds good.
I could almost get into that.
But it flies in the face of Hebrews 10:9, which says that God "takes away the first to establish the second.
" Only in Romanism is there an ongoing mixture of Old Covenant and New Covenant ideas.
Only in Rome and her daughters is there the desire for "liturgy," ceremony, ritual, set patterns of worship.
In the people of God is a hunger, not for the picture of the true any longer, but for the true.
His longing for the unity of the family of God is certainly legitimate, but that unity is something only God, a Spirit, can bring about.
"I pray that they will be one, as we are one.
" Father and Son did not have a physical unity, but a unity in the Holy Ghost.
It has been my experience that when I am in the presence of a true child of God, I am one with that person.
That's a far cry from enforcing the Pax Romana, where all who wear the name Christian must speak the same words, do the same ceremonies, etc.
Physical unity, a worldwide (as in ecumenical/catholic) fellowship, is not in the works for the people of God until the millennium.
Never was catholicity in the Roman sense envisioned by God for the pilgrim church.
I went to mass for seven years and experienced no feeling of being united in spirit with the Lord.
But worshiping with born again prisoners at Chicago's Cook County Jail, the presence of God was real, because we are one with the true church.
Did he really mean to say that the "real presence" in the Eucharist was not denied until the Reformation? Certainly he knows that it was denied, but that people who so denied it were martyred? But it is enough for me, regarding John chapter six, that Jesus gave answers, as He always does, to those who ask questions.
The others he realizes are not that concerned.
So it was with all Jesus' parables (Matthew 13).
Those who came afterward and asked the interpretation were given it.
Those who pondered it and tried to use their own wisdom, never did discover the truth.
It seems harsh, but it is indeed the method of teaching Jesus used.
Those who are looking for an excuse not to follow Jesus, will easily find it in his unexplained teachings.
In the case of John six, the pondering disciples were told that flesh profits nothing,and that Spirit gives life.
Jesus' flesh and blood would soon be in Heaven, and would not return until the last days.
Thus a second coming, and not a daily one at mass, is all we are to expect regarding the flesh of Jesus.
Meanwhile, so that we do not forget, we are to do this supper, as often as we do it, to remember Him and what He did for us.
The implications of a physical Jesus being added to my physical body are revolting.
That which goes into my physical digestive tract is eliminated, and suffers corruption.
That which is added to my body permanently, decays and eventually dies.
But Jesus cannot decay or die.
Brother Scott! May he go back to Jesus.
Ask Him again.
Get the whole truth.
He that comes to Him will never hunger.
He that believes on Him will never thirst! Believing in His death and shed blood is to receive life! And that life is in His Spirit! And "if that same Spirit which raised Christ from the dead dwells in you, that Spirit will make alive your mortal body!" You will not live forever because the physical body of Jesus is added to your flesh, but because the Spirit of Jesus is added to your Spirit!
He has left, I believe the wrong impressions in people's minds in the search for truth: First he says that there is a distinction between being a Christian and becoming a Catholic.
So do I, for that matter! But in fact the Scripture makes no such class distinctions of the body.
Those who call on the name of the Lord are saved.
Those saved are added to His Body.
Where does all the rest come from? There is only one church, and he became a part of it when his life was changed.
Scottsays that Luther had convinced himthat Catholics believed they were saved by their works.
No, a trip through the Canon Law will convince one of that.
From the proscribed form and administrator of baptism which Rome says "incorporates" a person into Christ (regardless of age and thus of awareness of what is going on), all the way to the dying rites, a "Roman citizen" is shackled with the traditions of men which he must perform to work out his salvation.
Regarding infant baptism.
It is actually impossible to conceive of an infant being baptized.
All media and artwork aside, certainly all know the meaning of the Greek word baptizo.
"Dip, plunge, immerse...
"It is the Biblical picture of a burial of the old person we were before Christ.
It is a submission to the very death of the old person in us.
Both physically and spiritually the baptism of an infant is impossible! But Presbyterianism, only one generation removed from Romanism, paved the way for Scott to believe in this teaching.
Thank God that Calvin and others saw enough to escape Rome.
But God calls us to keep escaping all that is not of God.
We must continue holding to the pure words of Scripture, in spite of the fact that in the last days many shall depart from the faith, many will not endure sound teaching.
I hear that Mr.
Hahn read everything he could get his hands on,about infant baptism.
But the Bible? Was that not enough? If he met silence there, is even that silence not enough to tell him something? We know we are to allow little ones to come to Christ, that we are to nourish and cherish them.
Perhaps follow the Old Testament pattern of dedication.
Where is anything else hinted at? Here is where God is silent and men talk a lot.
It would seem that Scott Hahn listened to what they said, and built his theology from that.
Covenant theology.
He obviously made a meaningful discovery regarding the covenants of the Bible.
But to jump from "I discovered...
" to "I decided," and then, "I determined " to build a whole system of interpretation and theology...
Well, I think that may have been a decision not of God.
Most roads outside the Word do lead to Rome, One road does not.
The road that does not is the simple belief of every Word of God, without an intricate theological bias binding it all together.
His wife seemed to submit to the Scriptures in the area of female leadership in the church.
The apostle Paul is very clear in this regard.
I sense though a veritable explosion coming from within Rome.
Soon the tide of ecumenicity will break upon the Vatican and push away its male domination.
Whence will such "new teaching" come to the church which is "semper eadem.
"? From the same place that brought the assumption of Mary, for example, into vogue.
A little trick known as the "piety of the people.
" Which, interpreted from Catholic speak means, the power of politics in the inner workings of the Roman system.
Regarding his argument concerning contraception.
I fully agree that to tamper with life that begins in the very mind of God (Psalm 139) is serious business.
And I believe it because God said it, not because Rome did.
This is not a Catholic Protestant issue.
This is a Biblical truth.
About saving faith.
Can anyone read the book of Romans, and Galatians, and still feel there is anything a person can do to earn his salvation? He has misrepresented the Protestant position by referring to Luther's searchings, which though for his day was earth shattering, for ours is not satisfying.
Remember he had a harsh mother (Rome), and did the best he could! Scott of all people should appreciate the time needed to reach mature thinking in these areas.
No true Protestant denies the need for works following one's salvation! These works, according to James, are the proof that we have true faith! But it is that faith that brings us into right relation to God, and the grace of God that gave us that faith! How can I know that a person has received the grace of God? His works! But shall this same man earn merit before God for those works? Anathema to such a thought.
Who can earn anything from God? Salvation is a free gift! Paul and James agree perfectly in the text to be quoted from the Old Testament.
They both say that Abraham believed God and it was accounted (or imputed) to him for righteousness.
In his haste to quote James 2:24, he omitted James 2:23.
James sees faith and the works that flow from it as one package, as body and spirit, but never denies that it is faith that brings the original imputation of righteousness, or right standing before God.
I feel he has been misled here, for his statements, on the surface, bring a man to ask what he can do beyond faith, to be saved.
The question we discuss was asked and answered in Scripture on more than one occasion.
The answer to those who already had faith rising in their hearts is given in Acts 2:38.
Repent! Be Baptized! And to one about to commit suicide, the answer is simply, "Believe on Jesus...
" Whenever a man senses he is "working" to "earn" his salvation, he needs to read Hebrews, and enter into God's rest.
There simply is no work required for our salvation.
Christ paid the price.
It is finished! What good news! Judaizers, Romanizers, take note.
Your Gospel is no Gospel.
And Paul says that anyone attempting to preach such a thing is accursed.
With Mr.
Hahn, nice sounding logic and theological words confuse an issue.
He talks about the "old (covenant) flowing into the new," and the new as the fulfillment, rather than the abandonment, of the Old.
That sounds good.
I could almost get into that.
But it flies in the face of Hebrews 10:9, which says that God "takes away the first to establish the second.
" Only in Romanism is there an ongoing mixture of Old Covenant and New Covenant ideas.
Only in Rome and her daughters is there the desire for "liturgy," ceremony, ritual, set patterns of worship.
In the people of God is a hunger, not for the picture of the true any longer, but for the true.
His longing for the unity of the family of God is certainly legitimate, but that unity is something only God, a Spirit, can bring about.
"I pray that they will be one, as we are one.
" Father and Son did not have a physical unity, but a unity in the Holy Ghost.
It has been my experience that when I am in the presence of a true child of God, I am one with that person.
That's a far cry from enforcing the Pax Romana, where all who wear the name Christian must speak the same words, do the same ceremonies, etc.
Physical unity, a worldwide (as in ecumenical/catholic) fellowship, is not in the works for the people of God until the millennium.
Never was catholicity in the Roman sense envisioned by God for the pilgrim church.
I went to mass for seven years and experienced no feeling of being united in spirit with the Lord.
But worshiping with born again prisoners at Chicago's Cook County Jail, the presence of God was real, because we are one with the true church.
Did he really mean to say that the "real presence" in the Eucharist was not denied until the Reformation? Certainly he knows that it was denied, but that people who so denied it were martyred? But it is enough for me, regarding John chapter six, that Jesus gave answers, as He always does, to those who ask questions.
The others he realizes are not that concerned.
So it was with all Jesus' parables (Matthew 13).
Those who came afterward and asked the interpretation were given it.
Those who pondered it and tried to use their own wisdom, never did discover the truth.
It seems harsh, but it is indeed the method of teaching Jesus used.
Those who are looking for an excuse not to follow Jesus, will easily find it in his unexplained teachings.
In the case of John six, the pondering disciples were told that flesh profits nothing,and that Spirit gives life.
Jesus' flesh and blood would soon be in Heaven, and would not return until the last days.
Thus a second coming, and not a daily one at mass, is all we are to expect regarding the flesh of Jesus.
Meanwhile, so that we do not forget, we are to do this supper, as often as we do it, to remember Him and what He did for us.
The implications of a physical Jesus being added to my physical body are revolting.
That which goes into my physical digestive tract is eliminated, and suffers corruption.
That which is added to my body permanently, decays and eventually dies.
But Jesus cannot decay or die.
Brother Scott! May he go back to Jesus.
Ask Him again.
Get the whole truth.
He that comes to Him will never hunger.
He that believes on Him will never thirst! Believing in His death and shed blood is to receive life! And that life is in His Spirit! And "if that same Spirit which raised Christ from the dead dwells in you, that Spirit will make alive your mortal body!" You will not live forever because the physical body of Jesus is added to your flesh, but because the Spirit of Jesus is added to your Spirit!
Source...