Response to Roman Catholic Scott Hahn on “Once for All” in Hebrews

And good afternoon, welcome to The Dividing Line. My name is James White, and as we promised last week, this week we take the time to provide a response to some of the best in Roman Catholic apologetics, specifically providing a response to a presentation made by Dr.

Scott Hahn on Catholic Answers Live. Now obviously I believe that the best way that a response like this could be handled would be to have a debate with Dr.

Hahn on the important subjects, I think cross -examination, interaction is a vital aspect of determining the truth of these matters, and we are talking about the very core of the

Gospel when we speak of such things as the atonement of Christ and justification.

But Dr. Hahn has chosen not to engage in debate, at least with me.

He debated Professor Knudsen years ago at Westminster Seminary, and Professor Knudsen was utterly unprepared for that encounter.

Thousands of tapes of that particular debate have been distributed, which I think is grossly unfair. And then there was a quote -unquote debate -slash -discussion in 1995 in Dallas, I had initially been invited to that as well, then was disinvited when

Dr. Hahn indicated that he would not come if I was there. When he was there, after I had been disinvited, he likened me to Jack Chick, and anyone who knows

Jack Chick and has read my materials knows that there is no comparison there.

But that has been Dr. Hahn's attitude thus far, and I did openly challenge him in front of about 30 witnesses after a debate with Fr.

Mitchell Pacwa in January of 1991 in El Cajon, California, the

San Diego area. And so it's been a little over, well, coming up now on 11 years since that challenge was given, and there has been no response thus far.

So we are sort of reduced to providing a response by allowing Dr. Hahn to have his say, and then responding.

And obviously it would be better, as I said, if I could go back and forth, but that has not been the situation that has been accepted by Dr.

Hahn himself. So especially because this is a very important topic, and that is specifically what does once for all mean in the context of the book of Hebrews, since that is central to the entire

Protestant -Catholic divide, then I'm going to be playing Dr. Hahn's own presentation in his own words, and you can check and make sure this is what he said.

There's been no editing. There's been no playing around with it. I pulled this directly off the web. This is made available to anybody who can go and listen to it.

And so you can go and listen to it yourself and make sure that what we're playing is exactly what he said.

But this was a specific program specifically on the subject of what does once for all mean.

And so there was no Protestant representation, but at least the subject was, hey, let's talk about this particular subject.

Now one thing I would like to also note with each one of the clips we're going to play, and I have four clips, each one's about anywhere from four to six minutes in length, so there's a fair amount of material there, but still

I hope the listener will hear the method of presentation.

Dr. Hahn is an excellent speaker, and he speaks with conviction.

He speaks with clarity. He speaks with scholarship. And so many

Protestants are what they are not out of a conviction, a knowledgeable conviction of why they believe what they believe, just because that's what they were raised with.

Just as many nominal Catholics are that just because, well, they're nominal Catholics. That's just the way things are.

And so as you listen to this, think about what it's like to be a Catholic. You don't hear biblical teaching.

You don't listen to exegetical preaching on a regular basis that, again, very few people in Protestant churches do.

We had someone come into channel this past, actually it was yesterday, and this person came in and said,

I'm a Charismatic. And so I asked, well, what kind of a Charismatic, like a Kenneth Copeland Charismatic? I don't know. We just dance and praise and speak in tongues.

And I said, oh, so do you have, you know, at most two or three with an interpreter?

I don't know anything about that. Oh, so Paul's commands aren't relevant today? I'm a new Christian. I've never heard of what

Paul said about this. You know, there's many people who aren't getting a bit of exegetical preaching in their evangelical churches either, but obviously it's much worse in the vast majority of Roman Catholic parishes where you're not going to be getting any type of truly biblically based, exegetically sound preaching on a regular basis.

So in light of that, imagine what it's like to all of a sudden hear Scott Hahn, who, by the way, is

Protestant trained in the biblical languages and things like that, all of a sudden talking about, well, this term here is

Anamnesis, and this term here is Hapax, and the grammatical thing here is that, and so on and so forth.

It sounds incredibly impressive. And so many people today, because we live in a soundbite society, make a decision based upon what they hear in the sense of, well, the person sounds like they're really convinced of this, so it must be true, rather than listening carefully to the argumentation.

And so I hope you'll listen today, and if you've never heard Scott Hahn speak before, I think you're going to be impressed.

However, I hope you will listen closely enough to recognize that the actual substance of the argument is completely missing.

And so with that, again, this is a program discussing what does it mean to believe in the book of Hebrews that Christ died once for all.

And the first clip I'm going to play is Dr. Hahn presenting what he used to believe.

And notice how he describes himself in his anti -Catholic days. He describes himself as an anti -Catholic

Calvinist. You know, I've never encountered one person. As I've traveled around, I've never encountered one person who walked up to me and said,

Hi, I'm an anti -Catholic Calvinist. And I travel, I speak at Orthodox Presbyterian churches and Reformed Baptist churches, and everybody knows that I'm a

Calvinist. But where does this anti -Catholic stuff come from? Well, because of the idea, well,

I need to appear like the Paul conversion. You know,

I was off to go kill myself some more Catholics when God knocked me off my horse and converted me type of a situation.

You'll hear that as well. But listen to the presentation, and let's ask ourselves a question. How many evangelicals today could at least present this level?

Now, I'm not saying this is a good presentation. In fact, the primary element of the argument is going to be missing, but I'll ask you, can you tell what the element of the argument that's missing is?

Listen up. How do we understand then, as Catholics, the phrase once for all in terms of Jesus being the high priest?

It's done, we know it's all finished on Calvary, but if he's still the high priest at the right hand of the Father in heaven, he's got to have something to offer.

What is he offering to the Father now? Well, perhaps the best way for me to address that question is before I tell you what we as Catholics believe that phrase once for all means,

I'll tell you what I believed when I was still a staunch anti -Catholic, using that particular phrase to oppose the notion that the mass is a sacrifice.

The phrase occurs throughout the book of Hebrews, but most notably in Hebrews 7 .27 and in Hebrews 9 .26.

Let me just tackle those two texts and you can see why there's a little bit of misunderstanding.

In Hebrews 7 .27 we read, he, that is Jesus, has no need, like those high priests, that is the

Old Testament high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people.

Now the contrast is clear there in Hebrews 9 .27. The first half of the verse is contrasting Jesus, the high priest of the new covenant, to the

Aaronic high priests of the old covenant. And it's pointing out that Jesus doesn't have the same need as the

Old Testament high priest in the line of Aaron. They had to sacrifice daily, and they had to do so for their own sins and then also for the sins of the people.

And then it goes on to complete that verse, Hebrews 7 .27, by saying this, he, that is

Jesus, did this once for all when he offered up himself. And so the phrase once for all there, on the surface might sound as though there is no more daily sacrifice, that in the old covenant the

Aaronic high priests offered sacrifice daily, but in the new covenant Jesus Christ, our high priest, offered one sacrifice once for all in the sense that it's over and done with.

It's past and it's complete and it is not to be represented in any sense, it's not something that is ongoing, it is something that is past, it is terminated, it is once for all.

And so I concluded back in my evangelical Protestant, reformed Calvinist, anti -Catholic days, that this text by itself was sufficient to demonstrate that calling the mass a sacrifice is not only an error, but a sacrilege, because it fundamentally misrepresents the once -for -all sacrifice of Jesus Christ on Calvary.

And then that was reinforced for me by the reoccurrence of that phrase once for all in Hebrews 9, verse 26, where we read, let's see,

I'll back up to verse 25, nor was it to offer himself repeatedly as the high priest enters the holy place yearly with blood not his own.

There the contrast again is between Jesus Christ, our high priest in the new covenant, and the

Old Testament high priest in the Aaronic line, who had to go back year after year into the holy place, into the sanctuary, in order to offer a sacrifice on the

Day of Atonement, again for their sins and for the sins of the people, a calf for the sins of the high priest and a goat for the sins of all of the

Israelite laity. So there in Hebrews 9, verse 25, we continue, nor was it to offer himself repeatedly as the high priest enters the holy place yearly with blood not his own, for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world.

But as it is, Jesus has appeared once for all at the end of the age to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

So you have in Hebrews 7, verse 27, the high priest in the

Old Testament offering sacrifices daily, and then in Hebrews 9, verse 26, the

Old Testament high priest offering the sacrifice of the Day of Atonement annually, and the implied contrast is that Jesus doesn't have to do what the

Old Testament high priest had to do, because he didn't have any personal sin to atone for, and so there doesn't have to be a sacrifice slaughtered day after day, or a

Day of Atonement sacrifice slaughtered year after year. Instead, Jesus sacrificed himself once for all.

And again, a surface reading, a very plausible interpretation, is that this is over and done with.

This is once for all in the sense of termination and completeness in the sense it's ended.

Now that is the view that I took, and I hope I am representing it accurately, because I don't want anybody to call up and say, oh, that was a straw man that he then proceeded to beat down.

I knew the argument well, I presented it regularly, and I did it effectively, and I'm sorry to say this, but I probably should, that I did it effectively enough to get some

Catholics to actually leave the Church. And I have been making up for that the last 15 years in a kind of apostolic restitution the best

I can. But that is a position that is quite common among historic

Protestants, and I'm speaking of Presbyterians and Lutherans and Methodists and Episcopalians.

The Radical Reformation, the Anabaptists, the Fundamentalism, which is really a 20th century phenomenon,

Pentecostals, Charismatics, again, a second half of a 20th century phenomenon.

This is sort of like one of the things that they all hold in common. Just as we believe that the Eucharistic sacrifice unites us as Catholics to Christ, you might say denying that the

Eucharist is a sacrifice is what unites non -Catholics in their opposition to the

Church's teaching here. And so it is, once for all, it's a battleground, unfortunately.

Okay, there is Scott Hahn's presentation of his old view, and that sounds pretty good.

It's not complete, however. Did you notice what was missing? What is the primary issue that is missing?

I already see someone on the channel who has seen it. Our friend from Austin has already caught the problem, and that, of course, is because he's a

Microsoft engineer, and he's really smart, and he focuses on things like that. But most folks would hear that and go, oh, yeah, okay, that sounds really good.

But there's a little problem. You may have heard him make the statement about Jesus not needing to offer anything because he has no sin to make an offering for.

That obviously would not be the case. I think that was just a slip -up on his part at that point, at least

I'm going to assume so. But what was missing was there was no discussion of why there is no need for a repetition of the sacrifice.

The reason that there is no need for the repetition of the sacrifice is because the sacrifice has accomplished its intention.

The perfection of those for whom it is made, Hebrews chapter 10, verses 10 through 14, or 9, 12, or all these places that say he's entered into the presence of God having done what?

Having obtained eternal redemption. He perfects those who are sanctified, etc.,

etc. He is able to save the uttermost, those drawn near unto God by him since he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

This was all missing from Dr. Hahn's presentation. As a result, the primary argument against the

Roman Catholic position is not a part of what he presents. And hence, when he defines the

Catholic position, it doesn't sound like, it sounds like, well, you know, if we dig just a little deeper into the text, remember he kept saying, now on a surface reading it sounds like it could mean this.

But actually when you take the rest of the argument into context, as we will when we look at Hebrews chapters 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, and we recognize that the writer here is encouraging

Hebrew Christians who are being faced with the temptation and the pressure to go back to the old ways, when we know what the context, and the context is the key, in fact in this next clip he's going to start by saying, well, the key here is context as we all agree.

Yeah, the context is not what he makes it out to be. The context is the encouragement of Hebrew Christians to remain faithful to the calling of Christ in the light of the pressure of those who are seeking to cause them to go back to the old ways.

And keeping that in mind, we will see that the Roman Catholic understanding of this, of these particular passages, whether it be

Hebrews 7 .27 or 9 .26 or whatever, absolutely violates the context of the book itself, let alone the immediate context of the passages also.

But again, note how it sounded accurate, it sounded knowledgeable,

I was once a Protestant anti -Catholic, yadda yadda yadda, but in reality it does not answer to the fullness of the position.

Now here is a six minute presentation, this came right after that, there's almost no space at all

I think between these two presentations. But here now, having presented the Protestant perspective from his understanding, here now is the

Catholic presentation by Dr. Hahn, listen very closely. Now here is how

I interpret it as a Catholic today. In context, that is always the key, and Protestants and Catholics agree on this point, but I think we need to really emphasize the point in this particular place, because when you read

Hebrews 7 .27, it doesn't take very long before you get to the next verse or two, which suddenly serves as a kind of corrective lens to adjust my interpretation and ultimately to overturn that anti -Catholic view.

Hebrews 7 .27, as I've said, ends by declaring, Christ did this once for all when he offered up himself.

And then the last verse, 28, concludes chapter 7, indeed the law appoints men in their weakness as high priests, but the word of the oath, which came later than the law, appoints a son who has been made perfect forever.

The point is simple, that in the Old Testament you have a succession of high priests because they kept dying, whereas in the

New Covenant you have an abiding high priest, the Son of God, because he lives forever. And then the very next phrase is, now the point in what we are saying is this, we have such a high priest.

Notice first of all, it doesn't say, we have had a high priest. It is a present tense, it's an ongoing and abiding reality, a permanent office that Christ occupies.

We have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the majesty in heaven, a minister in the sanctuary.

So this high priest of ours, who is presently serving in the office as high priest, also has a ministry.

That's why verse 2 says, a minister in the sanctuary. You don't have a minister without a ministry, and here you have a high priestly ministry that belongs to Christ, a minister in the sanctuary and the true tent, which is set up not by man, but by the

Lord. In other words, we're not talking about the old Jerusalem and the earthly temple, we're talking about the new

Jerusalem and the heavenly temple. And then we come to the clincher, verse 3.

Hebrews 8 .3 tells us, for every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices.

And that's a truism. I mean, that's an obvious fact that applies to both the old and the New Testament priests.

Every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices. So if you have the office of high priest, and he is a minister conducting a ministry, what is the ministry?

To offer gifts and sacrifices. And so here we have a conclusion that can be drawn equally of the old and the new, and that's exactly what the author goes on to say.

Hence, it is necessary for this priest, Jesus, also to have something to offer.

Now that's a remarkable statement, because what it's saying is this. Our high priest is in heaven.

He is a heavenly high priest. He serves in the heavenly sanctuary, not the earthly one. He has a heavenly ministry, not an earthly one like the

Levites. And what is the ministry? To offer gifts and sacrifices. Well, if he's a heavenly high priest in a heavenly sanctuary, performing a heavenly ministry, then that ministry must regard a heavenly sacrifice, a heavenly offering.

And what is it that Jesus offers in heaven? Well, the answer is simple.

There's only one thing that he has to offer, namely himself. He isn't bleeding anymore as he was on earth, hanging there on the cross.

He isn't gasping for his final breath. He isn't slipping into death. He isn't being buried.

That's why we speak of this as an unbloody sacrifice. But when you connect Hebrews 7 .27

and the next five verses that link you to Hebrews 8 .3, you realize that the fundamental purpose of the crucifixion and the resurrection was ultimately to deliver our high priest in his glorified body to heaven so that he could conduct his priestly ministry in this heavenly sanctuary by taking his glorified, resurrected body and making that his perfect sacrifice that he offers once for all, not in the sense of over and done with, but once and for all in the sense of perpetual.

It is a perpetual sacrifice. And if you study the phraseology in the Greek, once for all, you realize here and everywhere else it's used, you have a grammatical choice to make.

It can refer to termination, or it can refer to prolongation. It could be once for all in the sense of over and done with, it's in the past.

Or it could be once for all in the sense of a permanent, abiding, ongoing reality, perpetuity.

It is a perpetual sacrifice. And I would argue that if all we had was Hebrews 7 .27,

the jury would be split. But once Hebrews 27 leads us to 28, and then 8 .1,

2, and 3, it's clear there is only one decisive conclusion that our author can draw, namely that there is one sacrifice that Christ offers endlessly, perpetually, permanently.

He doesn't have to die anymore. He doesn't have to slaughter anything anymore. No more animal sacrifices, no more suffering, no more daily bloodshed, no more

Day of Atonement annual sacrifices of bulls and goats. No! Christ has been sacrificed on the cross, laid in a tomb, raised from the dead, ascended into heaven, precisely where He is, our heavenly

High Priest, in the heavenly sanctuary, performing a heavenly priestly ministry, and that heavenly sacrifice is

His glorified humanity. And that sacrifice, that gift, that offering of His own glorified body, is precisely what the

Eucharistic sacrifice is, and it's precisely why the Mass, it's not just that the

Mass can be regarded as a sacrifice, it's rather that it must be regarded as a sacrifice, or else we have severed the nerve, we have cut, we have undermined

Jesus Christ as our heavenly High Priest by taking away His sacrifice, we have taken away

His ministry, we have basically stripped Him of His office, but His office is abiding because His ministry is ongoing.

Well there you have the presentation of Dr. Hahn's interpretation of Hebrews and the sacrifice of Christ.

Now I almost feel like I need to go back through there and replay it, stop and start, respond to things as we go along.

But obviously, again, when you're presenting this to an audience of individuals who, in essence, probably have not read

Hebrews chapters 7 through 9 in a very long time, if they've ever read it at all, then obviously that kind of a presentation sounds so good.

It sounds good, it's smooth, it's convincing to a soundbite society.

But to a person who understands the argument, and especially to someone who can check the assertions that are being made, well, that's an exceptionally poor argument, and certainly understandable.

Why someone might not want to present that in a context where there's someone else who might be able to cross -examine and point out the holes in that argument.

Let's look at the passages under discussion. Hebrews chapter 7,

I'd like to back up and just start at Hebrews chapter 7, verse 23.

The former priests, on the one hand, existed in greater numbers because they were prevented by death from continuing.

But Jesus, on the other hand, because he continues forever, holds his priesthood permanently.

Notice the contrast, of course, between the old and the new. The old and the new.

In the old you had priests who were prevented from continuing in their office by death.

Interestingly enough, Dr. Hahn doesn't mention that Roman Catholicism has gone back to the old at that point, because they too have priests that are prevented from continuing by death.

There is nothing in the New Testament about a celibate separate priesthood. All believers are priests in the

New Testament. There is nothing in the New Testament about this concept of a sacramental priesthood and a priest having the power to do this, that, or the other thing by some special ability.

But here the contrast is drawn between Jesus, because he continues forever, and the old priests.

And notice it says, because he continues forever, he holds his priesthood permanently or without successors.

That is what the term refers to there, Hebrews 7 .25. Therefore, he is able, because he is able, notice that phrase, he is able.

Who is able? Christ is able to do what? To save forever, or to the uttermost, those who draw near to God through him.

Why? Why? This was not mentioned by Dr. Hahn. And again,

Dr. Hahn's written a book on this subject. It's primarily focused, interestingly enough, on the mass as heaven on earth, as drawn from a very interesting interpretation of the book of Revelation, rather than from the book of Hebrews.

And this was just a six -minute presentation, so I can't fault him for not referring to this or not referring to that.

But it is extremely important to note that in Hebrews 7 .25,

where we're talking about Christ holding his priesthood, then the assertion is made that because he holds his priesthood permanently, he's able to save forever those who draw near to God through him.

Why? Because he represents his offering through priests on earth who stand in the place of Christ and who, in fact, in another clip we're going to hear, at least

I think I have it in the stuff that I've put together here, Hahn goes so far as to talk about the priest offering up his body to Jesus, here's my lips, here's my hands, that the priest enters into the sacrifice, is that he's able to save forever?

No. In fact, and I would submit to you, in Roman Catholicism, there is no understanding of Hebrews 7 .25

because there is no Savior who can save. All you have in Roman Catholicism is a

Savior who can try to save, not who can actually save. Because of Roman Catholicism's synergism, because of its view of grace, because of its worshiping at the altar of the autonomous will of man, you do not have a

Savior who can actually save. So it's no wonder these passages that describe

Jesus as being powerful to save are so confusing to the

Roman Catholic who is not exegeting the scripture, but instead reading the scripture through the lens of the authoritative teachings of Rome.

What does Hebrews 7 .25 actually say? Why is he able to save forever those who draw near to God through him?

Since he always lives to make intercession for them. Not to offer another sacrifice, or to re -present the same sacrifice in a perpetual fashion, but because he lives to make intercession for them.

That'll become a key issue. We continue. For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens, which, by the way, no

Roman Catholic priest is, who does not need daily like those high priests to offer up sacrifices, first for his own sins, then for the sins of the people, which the

Roman Catholic priest must, because this he did once for all when he offered up himself.

Now, immediately we notice a couple of things. First of all, in Hebrews 7 .27, the term that is used here is not hapax, but ephapax.

Now that is hapax, it's a temporal adverb, but it is a strengthened form of the temporal adverb.

And when we go over to the other passage that was noted, that is

Hebrews 9 .26, and we look there, we have just simply hapax.

Now, I don't think it's necessarily that major of a deal, that these are two different terms.

One is just the strengthened form of the other, but he did simply say, well, when you look at this term, when you look at hapax, you have a grammatical determination to make between once for all, it's completed and done, the past, or perpetual.

Now, I'll be honest with you, I looked up this term in all the resources that are available to me, and I have a lot of resources in the

Greek language. I have all sorts of things on computer, and I have shelves and shelves of lexical sources, and obviously all of Kittles and all the rest of that stuff, and I did not find anywhere any meaning of this term that verifies the idea of perpetuality.

And in fact, when you think about it, and you're going to have to sort of brush off some of the rust from your grammar here, when you think about it, this is a temporal adverb.

A temporal adverb. What does an adverb do? An adverb describes the action of a verb.

And so obviously the meaning of an adverb is going to be determined not in isolation, but only in a context, and Dr.

Hahn did say, well, in each case, you have to make a certain call. You have to examine it in context.

Well, let's examine this term in context, and let's find out if it actually can bear the meaning of perpetuality in Hebrews 7 .27

and 9 .26. But I notice that I've begun sermonizing and preaching here, and I can't believe that a half hour has already passed, but it has.

We need to take a break. We'll be right back right after this. And welcome back to Dividing Line.

My name is James White. We're looking at Scott Hahn's presentation on Hebrews and the meaning of once for all.

We're looking at Hebrews chapter 7 and the terms ephahpox and hapox, which mean once for all, used in Hebrews 7 .27

and 9 .26, and other places as well in the text of the book of Hebrews.

And initially, of course, it's very obvious that the contrast is between the repetitive sacrifices of the old high priests over against the once for all sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

And obviously, just on a basic level, you go, well, wait a minute, let's think about what

Rome says. Now, some of the things that Dr. Hahn didn't mention about Roman theology includes the fact that you can approach the sacrifice of the mass, the

Eucharistic sacrifice, and you can approach that one time or ten times or a thousand times or ten thousand times during your life and still not be perfected by it.

This has been the main argument that I've made against the mass all along, is that if you say it's the same sacrifice as Calvary, simply in an unbloody mode, and I would, of course, question if that's even a valid argument to begin with, that you can have the same sacrifice that isn't bloody, be that as it may, if it is the same sacrifice, then it'll have the same effect as the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, which is the perfection of those for whom it is offered.

But that is not what the Roman Catholic mass does. It does not perfect anyone.

It makes grace available, but we must cooperate with that grace, and it only makes a limited amount of grace available.

It does not perfect anyone for whom it is made. And since that's the case, then, obviously, it is a different sacrifice than the sacrifice of Christ.

So when we look at Hebrews 7 .27, when we see the contrast that is being made, we're talking about high priests who offer up sacrifices, first for their own sins, then for the sins of the people.

But he doesn't need to do that. Why? Because this he did once for all when he offered up himself.

And so the phrase, once for all, is modifying what? Well, it's modifying the offering up of himself.

This he did once for all when he offered up himself.

And so I would argue that the term there is best understood as modifying the offering up of himself.

Now, that means that we then have to ask the question, and again, we don't have any lexical basis for hearing what

Dr. Hahn says about perpetuality. I mean, I suppose the best spin that I could put on Hahn's argumentation would be something along these lines.

What he's attempting to communicate is that an action could be accomplished that has a lasting result, and that would be a proper use of the term.

In other words, if we were to say that Christ died once for all, and the result of his death is permanent, that would be fine.

That would certainly be within the realm of the meaning of the term. In fact, that's how we understand it. That's exactly what we are saying has happened.

Is it because he's offered himself once? The effect of that one action is a perfect action.

It is complete action in the past, the abiding result is the present, and hence we would agree.

Yes, he has offered himself upon the cross, he's done it once for all, and the result of that offering continues on, no question about it.

But that's obviously not what Rome is saying. Rome then takes that small semblance of truth and turns it into the assertion that, well, there is a perpetual offering, and we need to again stand back and go, well, wait a minute, it's what wasn't said that so completely changes the meaning of what

Dr. Hahn has asserted. He didn't talk about the fact that in Roman Catholic theology, the re -presentation of the one sacrifice of Christ is going on over and over again, and it never perfects those for whom it is made.

That there are going to be people in hell who attended Mass over and over again, there are going to be people in purgatory, suffering for who knows how long for the temporal punishments of their sins, who attended to the

Mass all the time. And so those offerings either did not accomplish perfection, or they didn't accomplish anything at all.

And so, when we keep that in mind, then we can see what's being said with this idea of perpetuality, and folks, what kind of argument would it be?

Back in the context of Hebrews, back in the context of Hebrew Christians, who are under pressure to go back into the old ways, what kind of an argument would it be?

What kind of an encouragement would it be for them to stay in the truth, to present that kind of sacrifice?

The work of the Old Testament priest and the work of the Roman Catholic priest are so much the same.

You see, Rome's gone back to the old way. They've gone back to the old way, they've got their succession of priests who cannot continue because they die, and they offer a sacrifice that cannot save in and of itself.

That, of course, didn't come out in the presentation, and it would if we had an opportunity,

I think, to press that forward. And so, what is being said in Hebrews 7 .27?

The contrast does not lead us to some concept of perpetuity of offering, but instead a finished one -time offering that then has a perfect result after that.

And it's pretty obvious to me that I'm not going to get to a lot of the things

I want to get to here, but let's go to Hebrews chapter 9. For Christ did not enter, 9 .24,

a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us.

Now, that vital, vital truth, now to appear in the presence of God for us.

Not to re -sacrifice Himself, re -present His sacrifice, but to appear in the presence of God in our place.

The sacrifice is finished, He is the Lamb standing as if slain, and His work of intercession is not a separate work, it is merely the appearance of the perfect victim, whose work of sacrifice is done in the presence of the

Father in the place of His people. That's what 9 .24

says. Nor was it that He would offer Himself often, 9 .25.

Look at that. Nor was it that He would offer Himself often. What did we hear

Dr. Hahn say? He is offering that sacrifice. Well, who are we going to believe?

Nor was it that He would offer Himself often, more than once, frequently, repeatedly.

Palakas is the Greek term. And I would absolutely ask any

Roman Catholic who's listening, is that not what you experience when you go to Mass?

If you've grown up in the church, if you're a convert, whatever it is, have you not experienced

Palakas offerings? Nor was it that He would offer

Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not His own.

Otherwise He would have needed to suffer often, Palakas, since the foundation of the world.

But now, once at the consummation of the ages, He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.

Now here, Hoppox is really modifying the manifestation of Christ at the consummation of the ages.

This really isn't one of the strongest presentations of the Hoppox concept of the sin by the sacrifice of Himself, to put away sin.

Not merely make the means available for us to put away sin, not merely make grace available so that we can do good works in a state of grace that merit eternal life.

He has been manifested once at the consummation of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself, His own self -sacrifice.

And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once, that's the very same term, does that mean perpetually?

It is appointed for men to die perpetually. There is the exact same term. Don't you think that maybe the exact same term within one sentence, you know, that might need to come into the conversation.

For men to die once, and after this comes the judgment, so Christ also having been offered once,

Hoppox, that didn't get discussed, Hebrews 9 .28, so Christ also having been offered once, so the offering, which interestingly enough in the

Vulgate is oblatus, an oblation, one time, to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin to those who eagerly await

Him. So the contrast again, here is Christ, has been offered once, to do what?

To merit grace? No, to bear the sins of many.

If He bears the sins, He bears the wrath and the punishment, and if Christ bears the wrath and punishment of our sins in His body upon the tree, then man's religions and sacraments can have no place in adding to the work of Christ, and the power of man's religions is undone.

That's why then Hebrews 10 begins, for the law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very form of things, can never by the same sacrifices which they offer continually, year by year, make perfect those who draw near.

Do you see what He's saying? The repetitious nature of the old sacrifices demonstrated their inherent imperfection.

Is that not what we see in the mass? I submit to you that it is.

Otherwise, verse 2, would they not have ceased to be offered? Because the worshippers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have had consciousness of sins, notice the author assumes that if these are truly perfective offerings, they result in cleansing.

And notice, the word once, hapaks, same term.

Does it mean perpetual? Of course not. It means once. But in those sacrifices, there is an anamnesis, a reminder of sins, year by year.

And I need to get to the clip where he actually mentions this, but does not mention that while here, he's quite right, he says here in Hebrews 10 .3,

there is a reminder, it's a reminder of sins, but in Christ, he says in the Eucharist, we have a reminder of righteousness.

No, we have a reminder of a Savior, but he doesn't understand that in these verses, we have a clear, absolute refutation of the

Roman position. Well, anyways, I need to get to, I keep saying he says this, he says that.

I think it would be a good idea to let him say that. Now, this next one, I want to play it, and I can't believe how fast time is going, but this next one is a, began at six and a half minutes.

The question, while it's not super central, I want you to listen. I want you to listen to just how smoothly false doctrine can be made to sound.

Um, this is, this is really something that's very important to me because people just, they absolutely, people will contact me and go, oh boy, he sounds, sounds like he really believes it.

Well, I'm sure Arius really believed it. That doesn't make it right. There are so many

Protestants today who think in such a fuzzy manner, and we can't think that way.

That's not honoring and glorifying to God. Listen to this quote. The question I have for you both is, the church has always taught that the

Holy Mass re -presents the sacrifice of Calvary. The question

I, I think I'm really trying to understand the essence of sacrifice because my question is, since our

Lord does not physically die in the Holy Mass as he did on Calvary, how does the

Mass re -present Calvary? Robert, this is a great question.

I think we ought to take a look at that Hebrews 727 passage, not in terms of its subsequent context as I just did the last five or ten minutes, but in terms of the preceding context because when you read

Hebrews 7 verses 1 to 26, you see this protracted discussion of Jesus being foreshadowed by Melchizedek.

Melchizedek, right. Now, Melchizedek is first described as the King of Salem, which immediately reminds us that Salem was the name of Jerusalem back in the days of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

You can find this in Psalm 76, where Zion is actually referred to not as Jerusalem, but as Salem. So he was the

King of Salem, and then it goes on to say, Priest of the Most High God. In fact, the first time the

Hebrew word kohen, for priest, is used in the Bible, it's used with reference to Melchizedek.

So he's the first man called a priest in the Torah. So here he is as a priest and a king, meeting

Melchizedek, meeting Abraham, after this great battle described in Genesis 14. And the author of Hebrews uses extensive parallels to kind of show the way in which

Jesus is foreshadowed by Melchizedek. Why? Well, because Jesus, of course, is the

King of Kings. He's the Davidic king, not in the old Jerusalem, but in the new Jerusalem. And he's also, like Melchizedek was, not just a

Jerusalem king, but also a priest, a high priest over the people of Abraham, the people of faith.

And so throughout the New Testament, we find that Jesus Christ is the King of Kings and the high priest.

He's a priest -king in the heavenly Jerusalem. And so it goes on to describe how he receives the worship.

He receives the tithes of Abraham, and then it also goes on to describe how he blessed

Abraham. Now, it's amazing to me that here is the first man called a priest in the

Law of Moses. And this is not with reference to animal sacrifices like you will find in the book of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers.

No, in the book of Genesis, the first time a man is called a priest, the first time that he's involved in a liturgical exchange, it involves not bulls and goats, but bread and wine.

Hmm. Maybe this was why, in the first three centuries of the early church, you cannot really find a single church father who didn't fixate, just as the

Eucharistic canon, the prayer and the mass fixates upon the bread and the wine offered by your priest,

Melchizedek. So that the nature of a sacrifice, we've often misunderstood simply and only to be the death of something that involves slaughter and bloodshed.

Certainly there are bloody sacrifices, and those are for sin, and there's a sense in which

Jesus atones for sin through the bloody sacrifice that his own self -offering took upon the cross.

But we also know that before his blood was shed in that agonizing death at Calvary, the sacrifice had already begun hours earlier in the upper room, precisely because he was celebrating the

Passover as the Lamb of God, as the firstborn who was to die. He transforms the old

Passover into the new by transforming bread and wine into his own body and blood, and so the sacrifice of Christ began before he was nailed to the tree there at Calvary.

Right. The sacrifice began when he started celebrating the old Passover, that he was also fulfilling and transforming into the new.

So there you have bread and wine being transformed into his own self -sacrifice.

It then assumes a bloody form for our sins upon the cross, but when he's raised from the dead, when he ascends into heaven, and when

Peter in his famous Pentecostal sermon in Acts 2 goes on to quote Psalm 110, the exact same psalm

Hebrews 7 is quoting from, the famous Melchizedek psalm, for Peter, the resurrection and ascension of Christ is more than just a physical vindication, you know, you can't keep a good man down,

God proved that he really was in the right. No, for Peter, Jesus' resurrection and ascension is the proof that Psalm 110 is fulfilled, now he sits enthroned at the

Lord's right hand, and now he is a priest after the order of Melchizedek. Why?

Because the bread and the wine that he took on earth, that he offers through the cross, is now glorified in the heavenly

Jerusalem, where our heavenly priest -king offers his heavenly sacrifice as our heavenly high priest.

And so indelibly stamped on every page of the New Testament is this awareness that sacrifice can assume a bloody form, and did on the cross, but it didn't back in Melchizedek's day, and even during the law of Moses, even when the

Levites offered sacrifice, you will find the todah, the thank -offering, which is later translated into the

Greek as the Eucharist sacrifice of the thank -offering, that involved unleavened bread and wine.

So many sacrifices involved bloodshed and death, others did not. Christ's sacrifice subsumes them all, becomes one single sacrifice that goes through different stages, but it is one single perpetual sacrifice that abides forever and ever.

Because his body isn't getting older, it isn't growing weaker, it's never going to die again, he isn't gasping for breath, he isn't bloody anymore, but he is our high priest, and he is our sacrificial offering, forever and ever he presents himself to the

Father for our sake, on our behalf, and we unite our hearts with him, we unite our own priestly offerings with him, by making his self -offering ours as well.

And that's exactly why the Mass is the source and the summit of the Christian life, because that's where we receive the life -giving power of Christ's priestly offering.

His own self -sacrifice enables ourselves to become holy sacrifices also.

Well, again, you listen to something like that and you go, wait a minute, he talked about a lot of things that aren't actually even arguable, proved a lot of points that actually are not in dispute, but did he actually establish how it is that the

Mass is a sacrifice in the context of the dispute itself?

And I would say no. You can go back and talk about Melchizedek all you want. The book of Hebrews, while saying that Christ is a priest after the order of Melchizedek, uses that to establish the superiority of his priesthood to the

Levitical priesthood, but does not make that the foundation of the perfection of his work, nor of his bearing sin.

There is one point where Han says, now there is a way in which Christ atones for our sins upon the cross, that's true.

Well, yeah, that's the whole point of the book of Hebrews. The problem is the Roman Catholic perspective, by then adding all this other stuff, ends up undoing the very essence of the finished work of Christ, which provides the contrast to the old in the book of Hebrews.

There's all sorts of stuff there. It sounds so good to prove this and prove that and prove the other thing, but when you cover 14 points, and then come back and say you answered the first question, you've probably lost the person in the process.

They may not even realize, well, you know what, you didn't actually answer my question. Because how is it that if it's unbloody, it can truly be a sacrifice?

Are you saying that it's a thank -offering because we heard about how there were offerings in the law that were not bloody sacrifices?

Well, again, that's not contested. No one's contesting that point. There were, but they weren't for sin.

They didn't perfect anybody, so what's the point? Well, the point is that you didn't actually answer the question.

How is the mass a sacrifice? If it's a sacrifice because it's a representation of Calvary, then it should have the same effect as Calvary, but it's not a bloody sacrifice, and so it's not the giving of life, and so it can't actually be substitutionary, and so it can't be the same sacrifice, but we didn't really actually end up getting into that, did we?

No, we didn't have that opportunity. Well, that one, again, I had that one just simply to show just how it is that you can make an argument sound good by not actually addressing the chief objections to it, but instead by proving that you know a lot about other things, and I honestly believe that many, many people in evangelical churches today are taken in by the smoothness of that speech.

There's a reason why the New Testament warns us about these things.

There's a reason why the New Testament warns us not to be taken in by the flattery of those who would mislead us.

Well, this last clip I want to play, this is where we get to anamnesis. This is where we get to the issue of remembrance.

This is more central, and so I want us to listen very closely to this. The Lord at the Last Supper, specifically when

He initiated the Eucharist, said two things. One, at the giving of the bread,

He said, do this in remembrance of Me.

Then when He gave them the cup, He said, as often as you drink of this cup, you pro...well,

I probably get this wrong because of the way the proclamation after communion, when we eat this bread and drink this cup, we proclaim your death,

Lord Jesus, until you come in glory, and Paul talks about that that's a sharing in the sacrifice of Christ.

How can you not see that as the ongoingness of the death and resurrection of Christ, being that that sacrifice is, what

I'll say is, by Christ going into Heaven and the celebration of the

Eucharist, that just propels the event into forever, in terms of time and space.

Yeah, your question is really a rhetorical one, because it makes an excellent point, and that is, if you look carefully at the synoptic text in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, of course

John doesn't have any institution narrative, but if you move from Matthew, Mark, and Luke into 1

Corinthians 10 and 11, what you find is exactly what you've just said. Sacrificial language, sacrificial imagery, sacrificial expressions and formulas, as well.

Do this in remembrance of me. In the Hebrew, that would be zikaron, from the verb zakar, to remember. When the

Passover is celebrated, it's not just, you know, we look back, but we were there, and God is here, and we celebrate the victory and the liberty and the freedom that God brought us.

That's the way the Jews celebrated the Passover, and that's why the Passover liturgy involved the recital of Exodus 12, because it really was, we were there, it is here, and we experience this ongoing liberty.

The Hebrew term zikaron, remembrance, or zakar to remember, is just charged with that sort of realism.

And when you look at the Greek term, anamnesis, do this in remembrance of me, you find the same sacrificial language shot throughout, this kind of, whenever the term is used.

For instance, in Hebrews chapter 10, that same word anamnesis occurs. In fact, it's the only other place in the

New Testament where it occurs. We read in Hebrews 10, verse 3, but in these sacrifices, there is a reminder of sin year after year, and the

Greek term there is anamnesis. In these sacrifices, there is an anamnesis, a remembrance of sin year after year.

In the old covenant sacrifices, there was a reminder of sin. That's why bulls and goats continually had to be sacrificed, because they made the golden calf, and they were worshiping goats, according to Leviticus 7 .17,

while Moses was instructing the newly ordained Levites. And so the sacrifice in the old was a reminder of what the old had not delivered

Israel from yet, namely sin. Conversely, the new covenant sacrifice is an anamnesis, a remembrance, but not of sin, but of righteousness.

What the old covenant sacrifices couldn't do, the new covenant Eucharist does. The bread and the wine of a new

Melchizedek is a new Passover, and a new Jerusalem with a new priesthood, and it's a whole new sanctuary, a whole new order.

And this is exactly why the traditions that we find throughout the New Testament, whether we're looking at the

Gospels or the Epistles, just so simply pick up language like remembrance. You also refer to the cup, and there

Jesus says, the blood of the new covenant. And that's a direct quotation, a verbatim quote from Exodus 24, where Moses at the foot of Sinai, with the twelve princes and the twelve tribes, erected an altar, offered sacrifices, and sprinkled the blood of the sacrifices upon the altar, and upon the heads of the people, and said, this is the blood of the covenant.

And so Jesus takes the language straight from Exodus 24, where the sacrificial ceremony was uniting

Israel to the God of Israel as one family, bound by flesh and blood, by the sacrifice.

And so in the Gospels, in the Epistles, and I point out in my book, The Lamb's Supper, most especially in the

Apocalypse of John, you have the continuity and the absolute consistency of the

Catholic Church's teaching at every level of New Testament teaching. Namely, Christ is our

High Priest, He is our offering, He is in a heavenly sanctuary, where He offers a heavenly sacrifice.

Now again, I just note in passing, when you have to use the book of Revelation to establish the role of Christ in heaven in regards to His priesthood and sacrifice, and in the process turn the once -for -allness of His sacrifice into perpetuity, into a perpetual sacrifice, in essence turning the text completely on its head, then obviously what's going on here is you have an external authority that is teachings of Rome being placed upon or shoved into the text of the

New Testament. But again, folks, you can take any false teaching and make it sound good, as long as you use lots of Scripture verses, as long as you move from point to point quickly, and you're very confident in what you're saying.

I mean, in the clip before this, I had forgotten to mention this, we are told the sacrifice had begun in the upper room, the sacrifice had begun when

Jesus offered the bread and the wine. Where is that in the New Testament? It's nowhere.

That is, again, the common Roman Catholic anachronistic eisegesis, taking a concept that developed centuries and centuries, sometimes millennia later, and reading it back into either early

Church Fathers or, in this case, into the biblical text. We are redeemed, we are reconciled by the blood of His cross, not by the blood of transubstantiation done in the upper room, or some absurdity along lines like that.

And yet, again, if you just simply zip by it, most people won't catch it and go, well, wait a minute, you just said

X, Y, or Z. And if someone wants to believe, oh, gracious sakes, if someone wants to believe, then they find this kind of thing just absolutely fascinating, even if they don't understand most of the basis that's being used to make the argumentation in the first place.

So you heard Han talking about the anamnesis. You heard him talking about the remembrance, going back to zakar, the

Hebrew term, to remember. And he mentions what we've got in Hebrews chapter 10, verse 3.

The repetitive sacrifices, the repetitive offerings were an anamnesis of sin because they demonstrated that if you had to go to the same offering a second time, you had not been perfected.

Now, folks, what is that? Who has that kind of teaching today? Roman Catholicism, the very system

Han is presenting. Where am I wrong there? If you're a

Roman Catholic and you're listening right now, 866 -854 -6763, we have plenty of time for you to get, where am

I wrong there? Tell me where I'm wrong when I say that in Roman Catholicism you can approach the mass, which you say is the sacrifice of Christ, a thousand times in your life and yet die impure, to use the very words of the

Council of Trent. Well if that's the case, then Hebrews 10 .3, which refers to this repetition, it refers to this repeated sacrifice,

Hebrews 10 .3 says that you have a reminder of sins year by year.

Otherwise would they not have ceased to be offered because the worshipers, having once hoppocks been cleansed, would no longer have had consciousness of sins.

Why do you go to mass? Because you have consciousness of sins. Why do you go to confession? Because you have consciousness of sins.

But in those sacrifices, the repetitive sacrifices, plural, there is a reminder, an anamnesis, a reminder of sins year by year.

If you keep going to the same sacrifice and it does not perfect you, then what it functions as is an anamnesis of sin.

But then notice what he said. He said in the New Covenant we have an anamnesis, a reminder of righteousness.

He made reference to 1 Corinthians 11, but that's actually not what it says.

We have an anamnesis in Luke 22, this is my body which is given to you, do this in remembrance of me.

But then the reference that he was making to 1 Corinthians 11 is verses 24 -25 which says, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, this is my body which is for you, do this as an anamnesis to me, with reference to me.

Then in 11 .25, in the same way he took the cup also after supper, saying, this cup is the

New Covenant in my blood, do this as often as you drink it as an anamnesis with reference to me.

Not to righteousness, but to Christ. This is a personal remembrance of Christ.

Why? Where is the contrast here? The contrast is clear. In the

Old Covenant they had an anamnesis of sin, which pointed them to the need of a

Savior. In the New Covenant we have an anamnesis of a Savior, the blood of his covenant.

Verse 25 of chapter 11, 1 Corinthians 11 .25, this cup is the

New Covenant in my blood, do this as often as you drink it in remembrance of your sins?

No. In remembrance even of righteousness? No. In remembrance of Christ.

That's the contrast. We don't know have a reminder of sins any longer, because we have a sin bearer.

He has borne our sins. What does Hebrews say? He was manifested once, to do what?

To do away with sin, to take away sin. Did he do it?

Or did he just make it a possibility? That is the great dividing line between a sound biblical theology, a consistent biblical theology, and the inconsistent non -biblical theology of man's religions.

But folks, you can make anything, even a direct denial of biblical truth, sound biblical, as long as you can count on the fact that people who are going to be listening to you will not listen carefully, they will allow their emotions to cloud their thinking, they will not look past the words and see the meaning, and that's how

Roman Catholic apologists can get away with this. Now someone might say, well hey, why don't you call into one of those programs?

I've had many people ask that question. Why don't you call into Catholic Answers Live? Well first of all, if they were to invite me on,

I would jump at the opportunity. I said last week, I'd be happy to go in -studio,

I would be happy to do more than one program, I would find a way of putting myself up for a few days, they wanted to do a series, and they could have

Carl Keating and James Aiken and Tim Staples and Scott Hahn and anybody else they wanted in the studio, and they can all be there at the same time, that's fine with me,

I'd be glad to do it. And I'd like to invite any one of them, or all of them at the same time, I'm not sure that we'd have the facilities to do all of them at the same time unless they did a party line on the other end, but we'll get as many of them as we can on the phones here if we'd like.

If they'd like to come on, we've had an open invitation to Carl Keating, open invitation to Scott Hahn, James Aiken, let's talk about Mary for example, let's talk about once for all in the book of Hebrews, let's talk about where the

New Testament allegedly teaches that there is a celibate sacrificing priesthood in the

New Testament, let's do these things and let's have some cross -examination, let's ask the tough questions.

When you call into a program as a regular caller, not as a guest, when you call in as a guest you are at somewhat of a disadvantage, there's no question about that, when you're on the phone you can't hear as well, some of the other callers can talk over you, you can't see the host, you can't see when breaks are coming up, that's why when

I'm on the Bible Answer Man broadcast I try as much as I can to get into the studio itself because it's much easier to work with any host,

Hank especially, we can work together best when we can see each other and I can see how much time there is left in this particular segment, all those things, so there's no question about the fact you're at a disadvantage when you call in as a guest, but you're at much more of a disadvantage when you call in as a regular caller.

I think when you call as a regular caller, all you can do is ask a single question and on this level, asking a single question without being able to challenge the response, especially when it is quite probable that the response will involve some level of equivocation, it will involve some level of a use of different terms and terminology, sometimes not in a negative sense, in other words when talking with a

Roman Catholic just last evening in Channel, when we were in the Channel there was four Roman Catholics in at once and I was sort of talking to all of them at the same time and one used a specific term to ask concerning the clemency of the perspicuity of Scripture, does the

Bible unequivocally, I'm sorry, there's the term, does the Bible explicitly say

X, Y, and Z? Well, I needed to find out what this person meant by explicitly and when you call into a program, unfortunately you don't get to give that second level, you don't get to give that second aspect of the question or saying, well, wait a minute, you just said this, but that's not what

I meant, here's the terminology we need to use, etc., etc., etc. So I've just never felt that it was really a useful thing to do, to call into these programs and to start challenging these folks in that context.

They know that our program is open to them, they know that if they were to extend the invitation to me to be on their program, that I would be there.

And think about it, folks, when have you seen a, one time,

Catholic Answers in This Rock magazine had an article in response to my first book on Catholicism back from the middle of 1990,

The Fatal Flaw. I've never seen anything, well, I'll take that back, they also republished amazingly enough a horrific,

I mean horrific, book review from Amazon .com

about the Mary book. It's just horrible. I mean, just as amateur as it could get.

Don't you think, don't you think that like in light of such books as the

Roman Catholic Controversy, or especially The God Who Justifies, that if Catholic Answers is a serious apologetics organization, that they would deal with those issues?

And that they, knowing that the author would be more than happy to have his position examined critically on their own program, if they're really confident, don't you think that would be something that would be put on the table, made an offer?

It doesn't happen. It doesn't happen. This is a vital issue, and I would strongly direct folks,

I preached a series of sermons on the message of the book of Hebrews, especially in regards to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, Hebrews 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, and those sermons are available at www .prbc

.org, and I would strongly direct folks to read those sermons, because they would utilize this opportunity to encourage evangelical

Christians to know what they believe. There is, there is in evangelicalism a sickly sweet sentimentality about the cross, rather than a knowledge of what scripture itself says concerning the atonement of Jesus Christ.

And that sickly sweet sentimentality is no match for the kind of argumentation that is offered by someone such as Scott Long.

Oh, hello. I left that up, I see. It's no match for the kind of apologetic that is out there.

So we need to go much deeper to be able to provide a meaningful apologetic.

It's out there. I mean, there is a long history of excellent materials available on these very subjects, but it's not obviously what's at the top of the sales charts.

The prayer of Jabez is not going to prepare you to deal with Scott Heim. You're going to be left behind in the dust if all you read is left behind.

I can guarantee you that. You are convert fodder. You will get rolled over and turned into a pretzel if you think that's actually theological writing in the first place.

You need to find the real stuff, the stuff that is actually exegetical in nature and goes into the actual issues that we are to be dealing with.

Now, I played a lot of what Hahn had to say, and some people say, you shouldn't give someone like that kind of airtime.

Hey, he's getting all the airtime in the world. He's getting all the airtime in the world. He's on EWTN constantly, but he simply refuses to put himself in the context of where he's going to be challenged.

In fact, I discovered last night in a rather personal way, one of his students came into our channel, and when

I challenged that individual directly on particular issues, this person became very offended.

Very offended. We're all supposed to be nice to one another. Well, wait a minute.

Yeah, when did it become un -nice to speak the truth? So many of the followers of Scott Hahn that I've talked to are just so emotionally oriented.

It's a feel -good thing. It's not an issue of truth. It's a feel -good thing. Sometimes when you're dealing with issues of truth, you have to look at somebody and say, you are wrong.

That is untrue. And they may get offended by that.

Well, fine. Jesus looked at the scribes and Pharisees, and he offended them.

He said, you are not knowing the scriptures nor the power of God. And they thought they knew both.

So really, we have to ask ourselves the question, are we following Christ's example? Now, that doesn't mean we have to be, you know, there's a well -known, well,

I'll just say, John Robbins of the Trinity Foundation just loves to use unnecessary terminology that does nothing but creates tremendous emotion and anger and doesn't accomplish anything.

He came down on me like a ton of bricks because I objected to the constant ad hominem argumentation he was using against Roberts and Jennis.

Hey, Roberts and Jennis' materials presents you with more than enough to demonstrate he's wrong.

You don't have to cloud the issue by utilizing ad hominem argumentation all the time.

You don't have to say, you're wrong in your definition of St. Jennis and your mother's ugly.

I mean, that's really what some people do. They think somehow there's some spirituality to utilizing that kind of argumentation.

There's no reason for it. Now, at the same time, Roman Catholics on the other side will, even using the term

Roman Catholic, I've found Roman Catholics get upset about using Roman Catholic. Roman Catholic isn't what we describe ourselves as.

I find the church using the term Roman Catholic constantly in their own writings and the writings of Roman Catholic individuals.

Look at another term, Romanism. Oh, how dare you use the term Romanism? That's an absolute insult.

Scott Hahn has a tape series called Romanism and Romans. It's like there are certain minority groups that can use certain words themselves, but if anybody else says, oh, you're a terrible, horrible person.

When you say people exercising sola ecclesia, to the point where they will not hear any kind of argumentation against their position, to the point where they are absolutely deaf to what the

Word of God has to say, that's Romanism. That is an accurate term that is focused upon the ultimate authority.

If you want to call me a Biblicist, call me a Biblicist because that's my ultimate authority. Well, when you see someone for whom

Rome is the absolute, ultimate authority, there's absolutely no way that they can even begin to listen to any criticism of what

Rome has to say. Well, that's Romanism, and they are Romanists. They are

Romanists, and I'm thankful for the few that go ahead and use that name. Say, I'm a Romanist. Yeah, let's talk.

Let's go that direction. Well, anyways, enough preaching for today. I am being reminded by the powers that be on the other side of the wall that the

Roman Catholic Response Pack, which we have been offering for quite some time, is just about to expire.

You have Monday. This coming Monday is the last day we'll be offering that.

It's the last day for that Roman Catholic Response Pack, also the last day, obviously, of the year.

And if there is, by some amazing opportunity, someone out there who's just been waiting for the end of the year to bless this ministry, well, you have until Monday, as you well know.

Obviously there is a necessity for it to be postmarked by 1231 .01, or it counts for the year 2002, and who knows what's coming our direction in the year 2002.

Who could have guessed a year ago, remember what was going on a year ago? Oh, it's coming.

Here it comes. Why? Well, actually, that was the year before that. But the year before that, everybody said, oh, the world's going to come to an end.

And of course, it was the biggest non -event that's ever happened. And going into 2001, who had the foggiest idea?

What this year was going to bring was going to make 2000 look like milk toast. Well, anyways, just keep in mind, the

Roman Catholic Response Pack, you only have a few more days where you can get that special offer. And then

I have some ideas for other neat, fun packs to put together in the future and make those things available and hopefully bless you and give you the information that you need to be able to address these issues and to be an apologist in your own church, an apologist in your own context, in the context of your life.

You need to be able to give an answer for the hope that's within you, and we want to be able to equip you to do so.

So if you've been holding off, and I know some of you who have been, time's running out on that special Roman Catholic Response Pack, including the three -volume

Webster King work, Holy Scripture. I've got it right here. I can just reach right over there. See, I've got

Volume 1 in my hands right now. Holy Scripture, the ground and pillar of our faith, a biblical defense, the

Reformation Principle of Sola Scriptura. David King, who

I am honored to call a dear friend, wrote this book, and you need to have it, because as he demonstrates,

Rome's arguments are not only self -refuting, they are unbiblical, and you need to have the references that are available to you there, not only in that first volume, but in all three volumes.

A person who has that material will be prepared to respond to the best that Rome has to offer, because, quite simply, the best

Rome has to offer only sounds good because individuals who present it do so with those smooth words of flattery, as they say.

It also includes Eric Svensson's Who is My Mother?, a lengthy work on the subject of Mary that has obviously gotten

Roman Catholic apologists all up in arms, but for what reason? Well, because he speaks too much truth, and he goes into areas that many of them had never even considered before.

And so that is available, and then my own work, The God Who Justifies, a work on the doctrine of justification by grace through faith.

And so those are available still through this coming Monday. So make sure you grab it while you can.

Thank you for being with us today. We will be back again next week, Lord willing, to continue the defense of the faith.