Review of Scott Hahn's "Hail, Holy Queen: The Mother of God in the Word of God" Pt2

Alpha & Omega Ministries iconAlpha & Omega Ministries

19 views

Concerning the title of the book, James White demonstrates that taking into account the slightest bit of context with the OT concept of a queen mother reveals that they were often evil, and Scripture never records their requests being accepted by a king, showing the folly of allegorical interpretations that are used to force the sola ecclesia dogmas like the Marian doctrines. Also, even within his own book, Dr. Hahn is not consistent in his handling of the word “brother”.

Comments are disabled.

00:18
This is the Dividing Line, the Apostle Peter commanded all Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us, yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence.
00:28
Your host is Dr. James White, director of Alpha Omega Ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.
00:37
And now with today's topic, here is James White. Good afternoon, welcome to the Dividing Line, my name is James White and we continue this week with our review and refutation of Scott Hahn's newest book entitled
00:49
Hail Holy Queen, the Mother of God in the Word of God. This by the way is a double day production and maybe it's double day that we get to skewer today for the weird source and reference section in this book.
01:10
You may recall last week I was complaining there are no footnotes, there are no end notes.
01:15
And someone wrote to me and said, well, they're sort of in the back. And that's about the best way to put it, they are sort of in the back.
01:22
And so I guess I was wrong about that, sort of. What I mean is there are some references in the back, there are no marks anywhere in the text that tell you that, which is very, very strange.
01:36
Certainly in any book where you're actually quoting sources, quoting early church fathers and stuff, the idea of turning to the back and then looking for page numbers and then finding a paragraph and trying to figure out what refers to what is surely, without a question, some of the silliest things
01:57
I've ever seen, I can't believe it was done this way. But it is quite possible that it's not how
02:04
Scott Hahn wanted to do it. Certainly if I were him, I wouldn't want to do it. Publishers sometimes say, well, we want it to look pretty, we want it to have a certain look to it, stuff along those lines.
02:19
And so putting stuff like footnotes and references and things like that in it doesn't make it look pretty enough.
02:26
It makes it look too scholarly or scary or something like that. So I guess it's possible maybe that he wanted to have footnotes or he wanted to have reference notes or something and ended up with just this.
02:38
I don't know. But anyway, we found the references. They don't help much.
02:43
Entire pages, entire sections will go by without a single reference. And still many of the assertions that are made aren't referenced at all.
02:52
But there are a few thrown in. And to be honest with you, especially looking at this week's materials that we were looking at, it seems the references are more, well, here's some stuff that I dug up while I was doing my research years ago, let's throw it in here.
03:05
It's still very, very, very substandard. But before we get back to Hail Holy Queen, I wanted to look at a section from a previous book somewhat as substantiation for the assertion that I have made that quite often what is offered in Hail Holy Queen is nothing but eisegesis, very surface level, does not have any true substance to it.
03:32
And this really shouldn't surprise anyone in light of what we have in Rome's Sweet Home, Our Journey to Catholicism by Scott and Kimberly Hahn.
03:43
And especially I would like to read a section from pages 51 and 52.
03:53
The reason I find this especially interesting is because it reveals the thought process, at least as it's represented by Scott Hahn in his conversion story.
04:06
And it also demonstrates that if, one of two things is true, if the presentation in Rome's Sweet Home does accurately represent what took place during Dr.
04:22
Hahn's conversion, then Dr. Hahn should not describe himself as having once been a
04:27
Protestant scholar because his knowledge of such fundamental things, the
04:32
Sola Scriptura, was non -existent. That doesn't make any sense to me. I spoke with Scott Hahn, the first time
04:40
I spoke to him was at Northwest Community Church in Phoenix, Arizona in December of 1990.
04:46
And he quoted by memory from some of the Puritans. And so it doesn't strike me that in reality, he was utterly ignorant of the most basic elements of Protestant theology.
05:01
The only reason, the only other conclusion then, is that what is found in Rome's Sweet Home is dishonest.
05:09
It does not accurately reflect the process through which he went.
05:15
And it grossly misrepresents the Protestant position. And either one of those is not really a really positive thing.
05:23
Let me read you the section from pages 51 and following, sort of explain exactly what it is I'm referring to here.
05:29
Starting on page 51, I quote from Rome's Sweet Home, our journey to Catholicism by Scott and Kimberly Hahn.
05:36
This is Scott's perspective. In my church history class, one of my better students, an ex -Catholic, made a presentation on the
05:44
Council of Trent. Following the presentation, he posed a whopper -stopper question I'd never heard before.
05:52
He said, Professor Hahn, you've shown us that Sola Fide isn't scriptural, how the battle cry of the
05:57
Reformation is off base when it comes to interpreting Paul. As you know, the other battle cry of the
06:03
Reformation was Sola Scriptura. The Bible alone is our authority, rather than the Pope, church councils, or tradition.
06:10
Professor, where does the Bible teach that scripture alone is our sole authority? I looked at him and broke into a cold sweat.
06:19
I had never heard that question before. In seminary, I had a reputation for being a sort of Socratic gadfly, always asking the toughest questions.
06:29
But this one had never occurred to me. I said what any professor caught unprepared would say, what a dumb question.
06:38
As soon as the words left my mouth, I stopped dead in my tracks because I'd sworn that as a teacher, I would never say those words.
06:44
But the student was not intimidated. He knew it wasn't a dumb question. He looked me right in the eyes and said, just give me a dumb answer.
06:52
I said, first we would go to Matthew 5, 17. Then we would look at 2 Timothy 3, 16 through 17.
06:58
All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.
07:03
The man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. And we look at what Jesus says about tradition in Matthew 15.
07:10
His response was penetrating. But professor, Jesus wasn't condemning all tradition in Matthew 15, but rather corrupt tradition.
07:20
When 2 Timothy 3, 16 says all scripture, it doesn't say that only scripture is profitable. Prayer, evangelizing, and many other things are also essential.
07:28
And what about 2 Thessalonians 2, 15? Yeah, 2 Thessalonians 2, 15.
07:33
I said weakly, what does that say again? Paul tells the Thessalonians, so then brethren stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.
07:43
I shot back, you know, John, we're straying from the topic. Let's move on. I'll share something on this next week.
07:49
I could tell he wasn't satisfied. Neither was I. As I drove home on the beltway that night, I stared up at the stars and moaned,
07:56
Lord, what's happening? Where does scripture teach sola scriptura? There were two pillars on which
08:03
Protestants based their revolt against Rome. One had already fallen. The other was shaking. I was scared.
08:12
End quote. That ends on page 52. Interestingly enough, this book was copyrighted 1993,
08:20
Ignatius Press. And if Dr. Hahn had wanted, by that time, there were a number of examples, even in debates with people that he knew, such as Gerry Matytix, of thorough answers to that question.
08:38
Thorough refutations of the alleged attack upon sola scriptura launched by his student.
08:47
But can anyone truly believe that a person who called himself a Socratic gadfly, always asking the toughest questions, had never heard a question on sola scriptura at Gordon -Conwell
09:00
Theological Seminary? As a believing Protestant, not only that, as a man who calls himself an anti -Catholic,
09:09
I had never heard that question before. That is simply beyond the level of belief.
09:19
Not only this, but it is so obvious to anyone that the argumentation provided by this student is really just a
09:27
Roman Catholic arguing against sola scriptura, and his alleged response is just so surface level that they're not, they can't even be taken seriously.
09:37
I mean, for example, but Professor Gius wasn't condemning all tradition in Matthew 15, but rather corrupt tradition.
09:44
Yeah, but in Matthew chapter 15, the Jews who were presenting the
09:51
Corban rule, believe the Corban rule was a divine tradition passed down externally, outside of written scripture, through oral tradition, exactly as Rome says.
10:02
And if Dr. Hahn had done his homework, he would know exactly what
10:08
Tractate Aboth in the Talmud says concerning this, and the fact that they did indeed have the exact same idea of a body of doctrinal truth and revelation passed down orally from Moses through great leaders to their day.
10:30
Hence, Jesus was holding claimed divine tradition to a higher authority of scripture.
10:38
That's what he should have said to his students. But seemingly, if this is an even semi -accurate accounting, it isn't what he had to say.
10:50
Furthermore, saying the second two in 316 says all scripture, it doesn't say that only scripture is profitable, completely misses the point of the passage, what scripture enables the man of God to do, and that is to teach and to preach, to perform every good work in the church, to rebuke, to instruct in righteousness, so on and so forth, evangelizing, the things that he lists here, prayer, evangelizing, many other things are also essential.
11:16
For what? For the Christian life? Or as the rule of faith? I mean, these are not even serious responses, and yet they're being offered in such a way that he goes home going, oh,
11:29
I've never thought of these things before. How can anyone take seriously the assertion, oh,
11:36
I've never thought of these things before? It is truly, completely amazing.
11:44
Well, anyways, that's the kind of background that then comes into Hail Holy Queen, which provides this alleged exegetical basis for exalting
11:55
Mary to positions that no one in the early church ever believed that she should have.
12:01
And the most amazing part, we had gotten through a number of sections last week, the most amazing part is when we get to the section of the
12:14
Queen, Mother, and the Davidic King, beginning on page 71. And the reason
12:21
I say it's amazing is, again, I remember in preparing for the debate with Jerry Matitix on this subject on Long Island, I remember very clearly listening to Jerry's first -time presentation by tape of the concept of the
12:41
Queen Mother. And I think the main reason that this type of a concept resonates with some
12:49
Protestants is because of ignorance of the Old Testament and the confidence of the person making the statement, combined with,
12:58
I believe, the deceptiveness of the presentation that does not give you the entirety of the information.
13:05
Just as I pointed out in the debate with Jerry Matitix, Scott Hahn moderated in December of 1990, that I had never heard
13:12
Scott Hahn or Jerry Matitix give the whole truth about Isaiah 2222 and their wonderful presentation about how
13:23
Jesus is allegedly paralleling things in Isaiah 2222, and in Matthew chapter 16, and the keys, and Peter, and all the rest of that stuff, and Peter is the prime minister, and all this flowing stuff that I had heard both
13:36
Hahn and Matitix present by tape. I pointed out in the debate that they had never, in any of the things
13:43
I had read or listened to from them, pointed out that Isaiah 2222 is quoted in the
13:49
New Testament, it's just not in Matthew 16, it's in Revelation 3 .7, and there it's on the lips of the Lord Jesus in regards to himself, not in regards to Peter.
13:58
In fact, it's used long after Peter would have been dead and in the presence of Christ.
14:04
They took offense at that, but it was a fact, and it is when you don't tell the whole story, when you should know the whole story, that you have a problem.
14:16
When I first heard this stuff about the Queen Mother, I'm like, I've never heard that before, and for some reason people stop right there, and I think one of the reasons is some people don't want to do any homework, they don't want to do any research, because they want to believe what these people are saying for all sorts of different reasons.
14:38
Be that as it may, in this particular instance, we read in the presentations of both
14:47
Hahn and Matatex, only one example of this alleged office of the
14:53
Queen Mother, and if you happen to have obtained this book, someone lent it to you or whatever else it might be, after such wonderful subtitles as I Dream of Genealogy and Seeing Stars and so on and so forth, you have the
15:12
Queen Mother, which begins on page 78, and there we have this discussion of the alleged tradition in Near Eastern countries of the
15:29
Queen Mother. And beginning at page 79, we have, historically this played out as the people looked around them for models of governance.
15:38
Remember, they want a king in order to be like all the nations, thus following the models of the neighboring lands, they established a dynasty, a legal system, a royal court, and a
15:45
Queen Mother. We find this in Israel at the beginning of the Davidic dynasty. David's first successor, Solomon, reigns with his mother
15:51
Bathsheba at his right hand. Notice that David's mother doesn't do that, but anyways. Israel's Queen, or Gevurah, meaning
16:01
Great Lady, appears then throughout the history of the monarchy to the very end. When Jerusalem falls to Babylon, we find the invaders taking away the king,
16:10
Jehoiachin, and also his mother, Nehushta, who is given precedence in the account over the king's wives, 2
16:16
Kings 24, 15, Jeremiah 13, 18. Between Bathsheba and Nehushta, there were many
16:24
Queen Mothers. Some worked for good, some didn't, but none was a mere figurehead.
16:30
Gevurah was more than a title, it was an office with real authority. Consider the following scene from early in Solomon's reign.
16:37
So Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him on behalf of Adonijah, and the king rose to meet her and bowed down to her.
16:44
Then he sat on his throne and had a seat brought for the king's mother, and she sat on his right, 1
16:50
Kings 2 .19. This short passage packs implicit volumes about Israel's court, protocol, and power structure.
16:59
First, we see that the Queen Mother was approaching her son in order to speak on behalf of another person. This confirms what we know about Queen Mothers in other
17:07
Near Eastern cultures. We see in the Epic of Gilgamesh, for example, the Queen Mother in Mesopotamia was considered an intercessor or advocate for the people.
17:16
Next, we notice that Solomon rose from his throne when his mother entered the room. This makes the Queen Mother unique among the royal subjects.
17:22
Anyone else would, following protocol, rise in Solomon's presence, even the king's wives required to bow before him, 1
17:28
Kings 1 .16. Yet Solomon rose to honor Bathsheba. Moreover, he showed further respect by bowing before her and by seating her in the place of greatest honor at his right hand.
17:37
Undoubtedly, this describes a court ritual of Solomon's time, but all ritual expresses real relationships.
17:43
What do Solomon's actions tell us about his status in relationship to his mother? First, his power and authority were in no way threatened by her.
17:51
He bows to her, but he remains the monarch. She sits at his right hand, not vice versa. Yet clearly he will honor her requests, not out of any legally binding obligation of obedience, but rather out of filial love.
18:04
By the time of this particular scene, Solomon clearly had a track record of granting his mother's wishes. When Adonijah first approaches
18:11
Bathsheba to beg her intercession, he says, Pray, ask King Solomon, he will not refuse you. Though technically
18:18
Solomon was Bathsheba's superior, in the orders of both nature and protocol, he remained her son. He relied on her too to be his chief counselor, who could advise and instruct him in a way, perhaps, that few subjects would have the courage to follow.
18:33
Chapter 31 of the Book of Proverbs provides a striking illustration of how seriously a king took his mother's counsel, his queen mother's counsel.
18:42
Introduced as the words of Lemuel, king of Massa, which his mother taught him, the chapter goes on to give substantial practical instruction in governance.
18:50
We're not talking about folk wisdom here. As a political advisor and even strategist, as an advocate for the people, and as a subject who could be counted on for frankness, the queen mother was unique in her relationship to the king.
19:03
And so here is the presentation of this particular situation.
19:11
And it goes on from there into the next section, the King of David, to attempt to expand this out to where Mary, of course, becomes the picture of the queen mother.
19:20
And, in fact, that Eve becomes a picture and it just becomes very difficult to follow.
19:30
But there is the presentation of the concept of the queen mother.
19:37
Again, the main issue here is not so much what it says, but what it doesn't say.
19:43
And the conclusions drawn from the text are contradicted by what isn't said.
19:50
And if a person just simply took what they heard, if this was presented orally in a seminar, on a tape, on a videotape, or if they just read it and didn't look into it for themselves, it would sound like there was some sort of basis here for paralleling
20:11
Mary and the queen mother in this particular instance.
20:18
The problem with that is that if we just simply take the time to read, just take the time to read the rest of the text that is under consideration here, you would find something out that, well, if we're going to be fair, should have been mentioned here.
20:42
Let's go back to the passage and let's not stop with the one verse.
20:48
That Dr. Hahn quotes. First Kings 219 is the one he quoted.
20:53
Let's see what happens after that. It says, so Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him for Adonijah.
21:01
And the king arose to meet her, bowed before her and sat on his throne. Then he had a throne set for the king's mother and she sat on his right.
21:09
Then she said, I'm making one small request of you. Do not refuse me. And the king said to her, ask my mother for I will not refuse you.
21:15
So she said, let Abishag the Shunammite be given to Adonijah your brother as a wife. King Solomon answered and said to his mother.
21:24
And why are you asking Abishag the Shunammite for Adonijah? Ask for him also the kingdom for he is my older brother, even for him for Abiathar the priest and for Joab the son of Zeruiah.
21:36
Then King Solomon swore by the Lord saying, may God do so to me. And more also if Adonijah has not spoken this word against his own life.
21:47
Now, therefore, as the Lord lives, who has established me and set me on the throne of David, my father, and who has made me a house as he promised.
21:54
Surely Adonijah shall be put to death today. So King Solomon sent Benaiah the son of Jehoiada and he fell upon him so that he died.
22:04
Then to Abiathar the priest, the king said, go to Anathoth to your own field. For you deserve to die, but I will not put you to death at this time because you carry the ark of the
22:14
Lord before my father, David, and because you were afflicted in everything with which my father was afflicted.
22:20
So Solomon dismissed Abiathar from being priest to the Lord in order to fulfill the word of the Lord, which he had spoken concerning the house of Eli in Shiloh.
22:28
Now the news came to Joab for Joab had followed Adonijah, although he had not followed
22:34
Absalom. And Joab fled to the tent of the Lord and took hold of the horns of the altar. He was told
22:39
King Solomon that Joab had fled to the tent of the Lord and behold, he is beside the altar. And Solomon sent
22:45
Benaiah the son of Jehoiada saying, go, fall upon him. So Benaiah came to the tent of the
22:50
Lord and said to him, thus the king has said, come out. But he said, no, for I will die here. And Benaiah brought the king word again saying, thus spake
22:58
Joab. And thus he answered me. The king said to him, do as he has spoken and fall upon him and bury him that you may remove from me and from my father's house, the blood, which
23:09
Joab shed without cause. Lord will return his blood on his own head because he fell upon two men more righteous and better than he and kill them with a sword.
23:17
While my father, David did not know, did not know it. Abner, the son of Ner, commander of the army of Israel and Amasa, the son of Jather, commander of the army of Judah.
23:27
So shall their blood return the head of Joab and on the head of the sentence forever. But to David and his descendants in his house and his throne, may there be peace from the
23:35
Lord forever. Then Benaiah, the son of Jehoiada went and fell upon him and put him to death.
23:41
And he was buried at his own house in the wilderness. Now, does anyone note something here?
23:51
Remember, we're trying to create parallels here between Bathsheba and Mary.
24:00
Bathsheba did not get her request. In fact, two out of the three people involved in the request were killed.
24:08
Don't you think maybe just a little bit that might need to be brought out if we're going to have a balanced view of what the text says?
24:17
Maybe, possibly. It's amazing that you would try to notice.
24:23
And it's very interesting. When Han tries to come up with the intercessory aspect, he goes to Mesopotamian sources.
24:31
Why? Because you cannot find a single instance in the
24:36
Old Testament of a queen mother coming before a king and getting her request.
24:42
Not one, let alone here. Instead, we're told simply on the basis of 1
24:51
Kings 2 .19. Oh, well, look, he bowed down before her and he brings a throne and sets it for the king's mother and she sat on his right hand.
25:02
Why wasn't there one there all the time if this is such a big office? This is such a regular thing.
25:08
Why wasn't there one? One had to be brought. You know, if we just let the text speak for itself, we wouldn't come up with all this stuff that somehow, because Scott Han doesn't allow the text speak for itself, that he comes up with.
25:24
In fact, he even uses the term in the text, Gevira, a
25:30
Hebrew term, a great lady. What about some of these other
25:36
Geviras? Well, he does make reference just in passing to one other queen mother.
25:44
And he says, well, she was given preference even over the wives of the kings.
25:50
That was Nehushta. And then he gives us references, Jeremiah 13, 18, that the problem there is of both 1
25:58
Kings, Jeremiah 13, 18 and 2
26:03
Kings 24, 15. Isn't it interesting, though, that Jeremiah 13, 18 says, say to the king and the queen mother, take a lowly seat for your beautiful crown has come down from your head.
26:15
Why don't we parallel that with Mary? I mean, we're into parallels, right? And if we're trying to create parallels with the queen mother, what is the parallel here?
26:26
Well, I suppose, well, that probably took place during the crucifixion scene or something.
26:32
I suppose there's a way to come up with anything if you want to. But what about some other queen mothers? What about some other queen mothers that we might want to take a look at here and see what they had to do?
26:47
For example, 1 Kings 15, 13, he also removed
26:52
Maaka, his mother, from being queen mother because she had made a horrid image as an
26:58
Asherah and Asa cut down her horrid image and burned it at the Brook Kidron.
27:04
Well, there is a good parallel. Let's look at Maaka, the queen mother. She created idols and was removed as queen mother by Asa.
27:13
So I guess that's a position you can put somebody in or take somebody out. Where's the parallel there?
27:19
Not sure where it is. Of course, my favorite one is in 2 Kings 11 and the story of Athaliah.
27:27
There we read, when Athaliah, the mother of Ahaziah, saw that her son was dead, she rose and destroyed all the royal offspring.
27:35
Now, here's a wonderful queen mother. When her unrighteous king's son is killed, she rises up and destroys all the royal offspring.
27:48
But Jehoshaphat, the daughter of King Joram, sister of Ahaziah, took
27:54
Joash, the son of Ahaziah, and stole him from among the king's sons who were being put to death and placed him and his nurse in the bedroom.
28:01
So they hid him from Athaliah and he was not put to death. So he was hidden with her in the house of the
28:06
Lord six years while Athaliah was reigning over the land. Now, in the seventh year, Jehoiada sent and brought the captains of hundreds of the chariots and of the guard and brought them to him in the house of the
28:18
Lord. Then he made a covenant with them and put them under oath in the house of the Lord and showed them the king's son.
28:24
He commanded them, saying, This is the thing that you shall do. One third of you who come in on the Sabbath and keep watch over the king's house, one third also shall be at the gate's sewer, and one third at the gate behind the guard shall keep watch over the house for defense.
28:38
Two parts of you, even all who go out on the Sabbath, shall also keep watch over the house of the Lord for the king. Then you shall surround the king, each with his weapons in his hand, and whoever comes within the ranks shall be put to death and be with the king when he goes out and when he comes in.
28:54
So the captains of hundreds did according to all that Jehoiada the priest commanded, and each one of them took his men who were to come in on the
29:01
Sabbath with those who were to go out on the Sabbath and came to Jehoiada the priest. The priest gave the captains of hundreds the spear that had been
29:08
King David's, which were in the house of the Lord. The guard stood, each with his weapons in his hand, from the right side of the house to the left side of the house, by the altar and by the house around the king.
29:18
Then he brought the king's son out and put the crown on him and gave him the testimony, and they made him king and anointed him, and they clapped their hands and said,
29:25
Long live the king. When Athaliah heard the noise of the guard and of the people, she came to the people in the house of the
29:32
Lord. She looked, and behold, the king was standing by the pillar according to the custom, with the captains and the trumpeters beside the king, and all the people of the land rejoiced and blew trumpets.
29:42
Then Athaliah tore her clothes and cried, Treason, treason. And Jehoiada the priest commanded the captains of hundreds who were appointed over the army and said to them,
29:51
Bring her out between the ranks, and whoever follows her, put to death with a sword. But the priest said,
29:57
Let her not be put to death in the house of the Lord. So they seized her, and when she arrived at the horse's entrance of the king's house, she was put to death there.
30:06
And then after this, you have a discussion, verse 20. So all the people of the land rejoiced, and the city was quiet, for they had put
30:15
Athaliah to death with the sword at the king's house. The whole land rejoiced at the death of the queen mother.
30:23
So where's the parallel there? It's pretty obvious that the only way we can make this type of eisegesis work is to pick and choose what parts of the text we will parallel with, right?
30:40
A good friend of mine gave me this quotation from Basil of Caesarea.
30:46
He said, Shall I then prefer foolish wisdom to the oracles of the Holy Spirit? Shall I not rather exalt him who, not wishing to fill our minds with these vanities, has regulated all the economy of Scripture in view of the edification and the making perfect of our souls?
31:05
It is this which those seem to me not to have understood, who, giving themselves up to the distorted meaning of allegory, have undertaken to give a majesty of their own invention to Scripture.
31:20
It is to believe themselves wiser than the Holy Spirit and to bring forth their own ideas under a pretext of eisegesis.
31:31
Let us hear Scripture as it has been written. That is found in the
31:40
Nicene and Post -Nicene Fathers section 2, the second 14 volumes.
31:46
That's in volume 8 in the Hexameron, homily 9, if you'd like to look it up yourself.
31:55
I can't think of words that would be more directly descriptive. More directly descriptive of the attempts on the part of Scott Hahn to create in the
32:08
Old Testament parallels to Mary as substantiation of the exaltation of her to an unbiblical status than exactly what
32:17
Basil said almost 1700 years ago. Listen again to what it says.
32:26
After saying that God has given us Scripture for the edification and making perfect of our souls, he says, it is this, which those seem to me not to have understood, who giving themselves up to the distorted meaning of allegory.
32:40
When you leave out important pieces of information, that is distortion.
32:48
I continue to quote, have undertaken to give a majesty of their own invention to Scripture. It is to believe themselves wiser than the
32:56
Holy Spirit and to bring forth their own ideas under a pretext of exegesis.
33:04
And that's what the Marian dogmas are in Roman Catholicism. It is a pretext of exegesis.
33:13
Let us hear Scripture as it has been written, Basil says. Wisdom from one who came long before these dogmas were bound upon the hearts and souls of men.
33:30
Beginning on page 89, we have a chapter entitled The Mother is the
33:36
Message. And it's very interesting. It starts off with two sections here that are,
33:42
I think, somewhat significant in light of the facts that we have now seen. And this is what we read.
33:49
The study of biblical typology can easily consume an avid reader or an amateur detective.
33:56
It's fascinating to search out the ways in which, as St. Augustine said, the New Testament is concealed in the old and the old is revealed in the new.
34:03
Typology uncovers a hidden dimension to every page of the Scriptures. Careful study shows us that God writes history the way men write words, and that he is an author of supremely subtle artistry and meticulous craft.
34:17
He wastes no words in revelation. Nothing is incidental or accidental in God's providence.
34:24
Typology is liberating. It frees us from the slavish reading of biblical texts in isolation from all other biblical texts in isolation from capital
34:34
T tradition. Typology can also be illuminating, revealing the richness of passages that had formerly seemed obscure or trivial.
34:45
Then on page 90. Yet typology has its own pitfalls, and its abuses have led some scholars far afield and others into heresy.
34:55
To avoid these excesses, it's important that we be clear about our purposes, that we begin with an end in mind.
35:02
When we read Scripture in a typological way, we're not trying to crack a code or solve a puzzle or impose our own fanciful visions on the inspired word.
35:12
We're trying to encounter a person. We want to know God, his ways, his plan, his chosen people, and his mother.
35:25
Let me just repeat that. Yet typology has its own pitfalls, and its abuses have led some scholars far afield and others into heresy.
35:36
Yes, that is very, very true. We read on page 91, if we are to know the brotherhood of Jesus Christ, we must come to know the mother whom we share with Jesus Christ.
35:51
That is our important, it's an essence, part of the very essence of our brotherhood of Jesus Christ is to know
35:59
Mary, according to Dr. Hahn. Then we have an interesting section called
36:06
Keeping the Faith, and we read, what is dogma? A useful definition comes from Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who wrote that, quote, dogma is by definition nothing other than an interpretation of Scripture, end quote.
36:22
The Cardinal's insight was confirmed by the Church's International Theological Commission, its 1989 document on the interpretation of dogmas, quote, in the
36:30
Dogma of the Church. One is thus concerned with the correct interpretation of the
36:36
Scriptures, end quote. And here's Hahn speaking again. Dogma, then, is the
36:42
Church's infallible exegesis of Scripture. There are certain facts of Mary's life that the
36:51
Bible teaches explicitly. Her virginal conception of Jesus, for example, is put forth clearly and unequivocally in Luke's Gospel.
36:59
Other facts are implicit in the biblical text, but have always been taught by the
37:05
Church, such as Mary's assumption to heaven and her immaculate conception. Now stop right there.
37:11
I do not know of a single serious Roman Catholic historian that would say that, because they know beyond question that they cannot demonstrate that the early
37:26
Church taught and believed in Mary's bodily assumption to heaven and her immaculate conception.
37:35
That's just not the case. And in point of fact, honest
37:41
Catholic theologians admit that the modern doctrine of the immaculate conception was developed by a monk named
37:48
Edmer in the 12th century. So how that can be the universal and constant faith of the
37:55
Church throughout all time is a little bit difficult to understand. I continue on.
38:06
Thus, down through the centuries, the Church has carefully preserved, protected, and defended its Marian teachings, because to give them up would be to give up the
38:13
Gospel. Now please notice that the Marian teachings require us, are part of the
38:20
Gospel, the Gospel. To suppress them would be to deprive God's family of its mother.
38:27
Without the dogmas, Mary becomes unreal, a random female body from Nazareth, insignificant in her individuality, incidental to the
38:36
Gospel's narrative. And when Mary becomes unreal, so is the incarnation of God, which depend upon Mary's consent.
38:43
So does the suffering flesh of Christ, which he took from his mother. So does the Christian status as a child of God, which depends upon our sharing in the household and family of Jesus, the
38:53
Son of David, the Son of Mary. Seemingly, what we are being told by Dr.
39:00
Hahn is that without these dogmas, unknown in the early
39:06
Church, without the slightest foundation in Scripture itself, without these vitally important parts of the
39:15
Gospel, then the incarnation and the suffering of Christ and the
39:23
Christian status as a child of God are all jettisoned because we don't have the
39:28
Marian dogmas. Jerry Matitick said in our debate on Long Island in 1996 that the bodily assumption is a part of the
39:41
Gospel. And he also said that we have the exact same authority and level of certainty in understanding the bodily assumption of Mary that we have in understanding and believing the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
40:11
The fact that we have eyewitness accounts of the resurrection and the fact that the closest recording of an alleged story, the assumption is 800 years after the fact, doesn't matter, see, because we believe in sola ecclesia, the authority, ultimate authority of the
40:43
Church itself. Beginning on page 94, Dr.
40:49
Hahn begins discussing God's plan of salvation immaculately conceived. And in this particular section, we begin discussing some of these dogmas.
40:59
And it is here that some of the most amazing statements are made. There is a definition of the immaculate conception given.
41:08
Specifically, the immaculate conception is a doctrine that God preserved Mary free from all stain of original sin. From the first moment of her conception in the womb of her mother, then she lived in a state of sanctifying grace, won for her by the merits of her son
41:20
Jesus, thus the angels greeting to Mary, hail, full of grace, which by the way I just noticed is not an accurate translation of Cicero to many, was uttered years before Jesus won grace for mankind, yet Mary was even then full of grace.
41:37
And there's some discussions of Newman's viewpoint on this, so on and so forth.
41:43
Then you have this statement on page 96. The immaculate conception was a commonplace of the early
41:49
Church. Let me refer, let me repeat that. The immaculate conception was a commonplace of the early
41:56
Church. St. Ephraim of Syria testified to it in the fourth century, as did Augustine in the fifth.
42:03
Now folks, it's hard to know how to respond to this kind of thing.
42:09
When Roman Catholic scholars like O 'Carroll, who are
42:15
Marian scholars, say the exact opposite, they recognize, for example, that there is a tremendous dispute concerning what
42:23
Ephraim said. And interesting, he talks about the fourth century. There is not only questions about what sources are cited and what sources should not be cited, but everyone recognizes that to say that St.
42:39
Augustine is a supporter of the immaculate conception is to turn Church history on its head.
42:48
Even biased Roman Catholic sources document the error of Scott Hahn at this point.
42:56
For example, I would direct you to Michael O 'Carroll's Theotokos, a theological encyclopedia of the
43:03
Blessed Virgin Mary. Look up Ephraim of Syria and you will discover, for example, that he does quote the same section, the one quote that is given by Hahn.
43:19
But then he says, there are other texts which call for subtle interpretation and support of the theory.
43:26
Mary has spoken of one as baptized. And I am a spouse for thou art chaste.
43:32
I am handmaiden daughter of blood and water for thou has purchased and baptized me, the son of the heavenly one who came and took up his abode in me and I became his mother.
43:41
Again, he speaks of the eye as cleansed by the light of the sun. And he goes on in Mary is in the eye.
43:47
The light came to dwell and it cleansed her spirit, refined her thoughts, sanctified her mind and purified her virginity.
43:54
Now he goes on to say these texts are no contradiction of Mary's initial holiness, nor others found in the
44:00
Armenian version of the commentary on the diatessaron, which seemed to imply fault, doubt, for example, on the resurrection.
44:07
Here Ephraim confused Mary with Mary Magdalene. Again, the absence of a doctrine of original sin cannot be invoked.
44:15
He confused the two Marys. And this is a good, solid source and not one of those who are untaught and unlearned that Peter warned us about.
44:25
There's all sorts of errors in his views concerning Mary that are noted here.
44:32
All sorts of things that are noted within this material that you would never ever discover if you simply read
44:41
Scott Hahn's abbreviated version that just simply passes over the tremendous complexity of the documents that he's citing.
44:50
Augustine as well, very clearly does not hold to the modern doctrine of immaculate conception regards the idea of Mary being from the point of her conception, protected from the stain of original sin.
45:06
Again, any Augustine source is going to tell you this.
45:12
For example, Daniel Doyle, writing in Augustine Through the Ages, an encyclopedia, specifically refers to Augustine's views regarding Mary.
45:24
Specifically, he makes these statements. She is a model of faith for all
45:29
Christian believers. The bishop never questions Mary's holiness and immunity of sin, even though he is unable to explain how it is so.
45:38
His position must be understood in the context of Pelagian controversy. Pelagius himself had already admitted that Mary, like the other just women of the
45:45
Old Testament, was spared from any sin. Augustine never concedes that Mary was sinless, but prefers to dismiss the question in the words, let us then leave aside the
45:54
Holy Virgin Mary on account of the honor due to the Lord. I do not want to raise any questions here about her when we are dealing with sin.
46:04
Since medieval times, this passage has sometimes been invoked to ground Augustine's presumed acceptance of the doctrine of the immaculate conception.
46:13
It is clear, nonetheless, that given the various theories regarding the transmission of original sin current in his time,
46:19
Augustine in that passage would not have meant to imply Mary's immunity from it. Julian of Aclanum had accused him of being worse than Jovinian in consigning
46:30
Mary to the devil by the condition of her birth. Augustine replies that Mary was spared this by the grace of her rebirth, implying her baptism.
46:39
His understanding of concupiscence as an integral part of all marital relations made it difficult, if not impossible, to accept that she herself was conceived immaculately.
46:50
He further specifies in the following chapter that the body of Mary, although it came from this concupiscence, nevertheless did not transmit it, for she did not conceive in this way, etc.,
47:01
etc. So here you have a Roman Catholic saying that only since medieval times has this been used, and that would not have been the proper understanding in the context in which
47:13
Augustine was writing. I would also direct you to Philip Schaaf's discussion where he points out that it was
47:18
Augustine's teaching on the universality of original sin, accepting only
47:25
Jesus Christ that had to be overcome for the modern doctrine of the immaculate conception to gain ground and to gain acceptance.
47:33
It is fascinating that even Schaaf lists seven popes who likewise taught the same way.
47:40
So to call this the commonplace of the early church might explain why
47:45
Dr. Hahn does not debate this subject, because anyone who knows anything about church history could absolutely cause him to sit in utter silence by quoting nothing but Roman Catholic sources, let alone anyone else.
48:02
So it is an amazing, amazing thing that we have here in this assertion.
48:10
There is at least a little bit of an admission, I think, of some of this data on page 96.
48:17
Still the church did not make a dogmatic pronouncement on the immaculate conception until 1854. In the meantime, some
48:23
Christians, even some saints, worried that to say that Mary's sinlessness proceeded from the moment of her conception would somehow nullify her human nature or Christ's saving work.
48:33
So I guess that means that there were some people who didn't hold to the modern dogma of the immaculate conception being admitted there, but you'd have to be reading fairly closely to even catch that as you go along.
48:47
Then on page 99, we have the single worst subtitle, the one I've cited to a number of people,
48:53
Fetal Attraction. Yes, page 99, Fetal Attraction is the subtitle that is given.
49:04
We have here a discussion of various early church fathers and are used to phrase
49:10
Theotokos, literally God -bearer or Mother of God. Interestingly enough, while he can cite these people, he also doesn't mention those who believe that Mary committed sin, even though those are listed by Roman Catholic scholars on that particular subject.
49:27
Then he goes after those who denied the propriety of the use of the term
49:32
Mother of God, so on and so forth. Talks about St. Cyril of Alexandria.
49:37
I'm not sure how he got sainted in light of the fact that he was guilty of murder. But anyways, we also then read on page 101, a discussion of the
49:48
Council of Ephesus. Let me just give this to you. To those of you who know church history, you'll find this just to be almost humorous.
49:55
Quote, to us, the dispute might seem abstract and academic, but its progress consumed the attention, even of ordinary
50:01
Christians in the fifth century, stirring them to more fervent devotion. History tells us that when
50:07
Pope Celestine convoked the Council of Ephesus in 8431, in order to settle the Mother of God controversy,
50:12
Christians thronged the city awaiting word of the bishop's decision. When the bishops read the council's proclamation that Mary was indeed the
50:18
Mother of God, the people gave way to their joy and celebrated by carrying the bishops, all 200 of them, aloft through the streets in a torch -lit procession.
50:27
Think for a moment about the intensity of the affection those believers felt for the Blessed Virgin Mary, to sojourn to the city of the council, to wait outdoors to the bishop's decree, then to spend the night in celebration, all because this woman had received her due honor.
50:41
Oh, that sounds so wonderful. There's only one problem. Anyone who knows about the history of these councils knows why these people were there.
50:50
They were there to beat the other side to death. And it happened.
50:56
They were having wars in the streets and beating the snot out of the other side. I mean,
51:03
I guess someone thinks that no one's ever going to check this out or something. I don't know.
51:09
But even the Roman Catholic histories record the roving bands of monks that would meet in physical combat.
51:19
The fact that in some of these councils, especially in Ephesus, there were beatings that took place during the proceedings.
51:27
To turn it into, oh, we're just here for Mary, she's gotten her due honor, it's wonderful, is again to just simply gut history of its reality.
51:43
Absolutely an amazing thing. Well, then we have the beginning of the discussion of Mary's perpetual virginity, starting page 102 under the title,
51:52
Once a virgin, always a virgin. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke leave no room for the doubt that Mary was a virgin at the time she conceived the
52:01
Son of God. Well, that is, of course, very true. Very, very true. But on page 103, read,
52:08
Virgin is once and always who she is. Thus, the church has constantly taught that Mary preserved her virginity, not only before the conception of Jesus, but ever afterward as well.
52:20
Though she was married to Joseph, the two never consummated their marriage by sexual intercourse. This doctrine is known as Mary's perpetual virginity.
52:30
Heretics in the early church occasionally challenged this teaching, but they never gained much ground. Their purportedly scriptural arguments were easily refuted by the likes of St.
52:39
Jerome, the great biblical scholar of the ancient church. Jerome was also a great name -caller, and he reserved his most scathing insults for those who dared to question
52:49
Mary's perpetual virginity. What were the arguments of these heretics? By the way, I just noticed that, you know, just in passing,
52:56
I just note that Jerome also had a different canon than Dr.
53:02
Hahn has. I'm not sure if he would still call him the great biblical scholar at that time, but let's see if Jerome really did just a blow away those who said, um, there seems to be biblical evidence against this idea of the perpetual virginity.
53:19
He says the bulk of their arguments rested on the New Testament passages that refer to Jesus' brethren. We find in St.
53:25
Mark's gospel, for example, is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joseph and Judas and Simon and are not his sisters here with us?
53:32
In Matthew 14, 26, we see, Behold, his mother and his brethren stood outside, asking to speak to him.
53:39
Luke 7, we read that Jesus was Mary's firstborn. Now, before I go on, let me, let me go back in the text here, because three or four times, here's, here's,
53:50
I think it's three times that I counted, but I'll just give you one. Earlier, before talking about this subject,
53:56
Dr. Hahn says on page 66, The Greek word for brother, adelphos, literally means from the same womb.
54:08
Let me repeat that. The Greek word for brother, adelphos, literally means from the same womb.
54:17
Now that's Dr. Hahn speaking. He says adelphos means from the same womb.
54:26
And if I'm recalling correctly, let me scan really quickly here. This, there it is.
54:34
Page 135. So this is after the discussion of perpetual virginity.
54:41
We read, Divine motherhood is the place where God wants Christians to meet Christ, their brother.
54:48
I'll say it again. Adelphos means from the same womb.
54:55
Now, why is that relevant? Well, keep it in mind because I want to read you how
55:02
Scott Hahn deals with the use of this phrase, brethren, in regards to Jesus.
55:08
Here's what he says, beginning on page 104. This is virtually a non -issue for anyone who has a glancing familiarity with Hebrew customs.
55:21
The Hebrew word for brother is a more inclusive term applying to cousins as well. In fact, in ancient
55:26
Hebrew, there is no word for cousin. To a Jew of Jesus' time, one's cousin was one's brother.
55:33
This familial principle applied in other Semitic languages as well, such as Aramaic, the language Jesus spoke.
55:38
Furthermore, precisely because Jesus was an only child, his cousins would even assume the legal status of siblings for him as they were his nearest relatives.
55:47
Finally, the word firstborn raises no real difficulty because it was a legal term in ancient Israel that applied to the child who opened the womb, whether or not the mother bore more children afterward.
55:58
Heretics also quoted passages that seemed— well, I'm going to stop right there because it actually transitions into the until thing.
56:06
There is his answer to Jesus' brethren. Now, those of you who have a glancing familiarity with the
56:15
Bible happen to know what the Greek word for brother and brethren is in those passages that were cited, including in the
56:25
Gospel of Mark, chapter 6, verse 3, and Matthew 12, 46. And you know what it is? Adelphos.
56:33
Yes, the same word that in other contexts, Dr. Hahn repeatedly tells us,
56:39
Adelphos means from the same womb, except when it's used here because the dogma of the church.
56:48
Isn't it amazing that he doesn't tell anyone, doesn't tell his reader that we're not talking about a
56:57
Hebrew word here, are we? What did Mark write? He wrote
57:03
Adelphos. What did Matthew write? He wrote Adelphos. What kind of honest discussion of this issue ignores that it is amazing, absolutely amazing.
57:26
I continue on page 104. Heretics also quoted passages that seemed, again, to those unfamiliar with Jewish modes of expression.
57:34
To imply that Mary and Joseph later had sexual relations, they would cite Matthew 1, 18. Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way.
57:40
When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph before they came together, she was found to be a child of the Holy Spirit. St. Jerome's antagonist,
57:47
Helvidius, placed his question squarely on the word before in that sentence, claiming that Matthew would never have applied before they came together to a couple who did not eventually come together.
57:58
Helvidius also cited a passage later in Matthew's first chapter that declares that Joseph knew her not until she had born a son,
58:04
Matthew 1, 25. Again, Helvidius said that Matthew's use of until implied that Joseph knew
58:10
Mary afterward. Now, I just, I just love this.
58:15
Here is the response from Dr. Hahn on page 105. This is a classic example of amateur exegesis.
58:26
It was definitively and easily leveled by a professional biblical scholar. Responding to Helvidius, Jerome demonstrated the scripture often uses a fixed time to denote time without limitation, as when
58:38
God by the mouth of the prophet says to certain persons, even to old age, I am he, Isaiah 46, 4.
58:45
Jerome thundered on. Will he cease to be God when they have grown old? The answer, of course, is no.
58:51
Jerome goes on then to quote Jesus, who said, lo, I am with you always to the close of the age, Matthew 28, 20.
58:57
Wryly, Jerome asked Helvidius if he thought the Lord would then forsake his disciples after the close of the age.
59:02
Jerome multiplies such examples, but we don't need to repeat them here. Suffice to say that those who question
59:08
Mary's virginity don't have a page of scripture to stand on, and Christian tradition is univocally against them.
59:21
I just love when folks say stuff like that. Because as was pointed out in the debate with Mr.
59:30
Matitix on Long Island, Dr. Hahn, it was Mr. Hahn back in those days,
59:35
Dr. Hahn and Jerry Matitix and Carl Keating and Patrick Madrid and Tim Staples and all the rest of them are quite right to point out that the bare
59:47
Greek term heos in Matthew 125 doesn't tell us whether there was relations between Joseph and Mary after the point of the birth.
59:59
Of course, it wouldn't have been in Jewish culture, the very culture he was talking about, a marriage in the concept that is being presented by Dr.
01:00:09
Hahn. But what Jerry Matitix demonstrated he had never heard of and what obviously
01:00:16
Dr. Hahn has never heard of either is the fact that the phrase used by Matthew in Matthew 125 isn't just heos, it's heos who.
01:00:28
And I asked Mr. St. Genes, Mr. St. Genes, can you show me one place in the Gospel of Matthew? How about one place in all the
01:00:35
Gospels? How about, Jerry, one place in all the New Testaments? Where heos who being used in the temporal fashion that it's used in Matthew 125 does not have the meaning that the action of the main verb is going to either be changed or reversed upon its completion.
01:00:58
Obviously, Jerry had not run into the research of a friend of mine, Eric Svensson. Dr. Svensson wrote his dissertation on this subject.
01:01:07
In fact, his excellent book on the subject of Mary is currently being published by Calvary Press, who also published my book,
01:01:14
The Potter's Freedom. In fact, it's going to be a big year for books relevant to this subject.
01:01:21
It's going to be an exciting year. My book, The God Who Justifies, is coming out from Bethany House Publishers, 400 -page hardback on the subject of justification by faith.
01:01:31
Dr. Svensson's book on Mary is coming out. And the Webster King book, which, yes, has grown to three volumes, well over 1 ,200 pages, will also be out around.
01:01:46
And they're all coming out within about 30 to 60 days of each other. I think Catholic apologists are going to have a very long fall and winter and spring and next summer and fall.
01:01:59
It's great that these books are coming out. But it doesn't seem that Dr.
01:02:05
Hahn and Jerry Matytix and others are aware of the fact that it's not just heos.
01:02:10
And those are the words that Jerome is using. Obviously, Jerome himself never addressed this.
01:02:16
Jerome wasn't aware of the fact that heos, when used with who, becomes a phrase with specific meaning.
01:02:26
And so, actually, Dr. Hahn, we have many pages of scripture to stand on.
01:02:33
Many pages of scripture, indeed, to stand on in regards to this subject.
01:02:40
Then, finally, he moves on to the Assumption. And it's amazing. Page 108, speaking of the
01:02:47
Assumption of Mary. Documentary evidence of the Assumption stretches back to the 4th century.
01:02:54
By the end of the 6th century, the doctrine and the feast day were already universally established in the church.
01:02:59
Shh. There is no evidence that the teaching was seriously challenged or disputed during the period of the fathers.
01:03:08
That is the most absurd statement I have ever heard made about church history.
01:03:15
It is no wonder Dr. Hahn will not defend this kind of thing in a public debate.
01:03:23
This is the most gratuitous twisting of church history I've ever seen. What kind of documentary evidence is being offered to us?
01:03:35
Well, isn't it fascinating? It's on page 108. And when you turn back to this goofy stuff in the back, sources and references, well, there's a section for page 107 and there's a section for page 110.
01:03:49
There is not even a listed reference for this. Why? Well, when you go to truly scholarly material from the
01:03:56
Roman Catholics, you discover why. You see,
01:04:02
Roman Catholic scholars admit that the first real documentary evidence that we can find of the bodily assumption of Mary is in the transitive
01:04:13
Beate Maria literature and that this literature is, well, it's heretical and it comes from the end of the fifth century.
01:04:25
And in fact, it was anathematized by the Pope and so since 1950 and the dogmatic definition of this belief, which
01:04:40
I remind you, even Dr. Hahn said, dogma is simply the infallible interpretation of scripture. So the bodily assumption is an infallible interpretation of scripture and yet Rome admits there really isn't any direct scriptural evidence.
01:04:51
So I'm not really sure how that works. But anyways, we have this dogma, whether it has biblical basis or not.
01:04:59
And this allegedly is found throughout the early church fathers. Of course, if we were to start asking questions, well, did
01:05:09
Irenaeus say anything about it? Did Tertullian say anything about it?
01:05:14
Did Ignatius say anything about it? Did Cyril say anything about it? We could go over and over and answer, well, no, well, no, well, but that doesn't really matter.
01:05:22
Well, no. What kind of literature actually gave rise to this? Let me read again from Michael O 'Carroll.
01:05:30
And he's giving a survey from Van Esbroek of all the literary testimonies and the assumption prior to the 10th century.
01:05:46
And two different manuscript families are discernible, he says. And let me just read you, this is page 59. This is distinguishable into two manuscript families.
01:05:54
The first with 29 members features the palm of the tree of life from the beginning of the story. The virgin goes to Mount Olivet and receives the palm from the angel.
01:06:04
The palm is placed in a shroud. After the arrival of the apostles, the palm is given by the virgin to St.
01:06:10
John. Peter prays and speaks. At dawn, the archangels Gabriel and Michael arrive and Mary's soul is given to Michael.
01:06:18
The body is buried. Jews attack the buyer. The high priest, their leader, is punished, his arms being mutilated.
01:06:25
But he is miraculously healed and sent with the palm to touch and heal those who had been stricken blind. Peter and Paul engage in discussion.
01:06:34
Seraphim arrive on the scene with Gabriel and Michael. Michael takes Mary's body and places it near the tree of life.
01:06:41
The distinguishing characteristic of the second group of manuscripts is the journey of the blessed virgin to Bethlehem, where the apostles assemble and where she is pursued by the
01:06:49
Jews. She and the apostles are delivered by being miraculously born to Jerusalem. She is born to the tomb of Gethsemane.
01:06:56
Again, there is trouble caused by Jews. Their leader bears the name, the same name,
01:07:02
Jephonias, as in the first version of the legend, but he is not the high priest. The same miraculous outcome takes place.
01:07:09
Many of the texts speak of Thomas as absent from the funeral, returning three days later, whereon the tomb is open and seen to be empty.
01:07:18
So there's, there's the kind of stories, my friends, the kind of myths.
01:07:26
The kind of silly superstition that has no basis in history at all.
01:07:34
That is written centuries upon centuries upon centuries after the events allegedly took place.
01:07:44
That Rome binds as dogmatic gospel upon the backs of her followers.
01:07:56
And there are Protestants who say that Rome doesn't fall under the anathema of Galatians 1 when
01:08:04
Paul anathematized these teachers for adding one thing to the gospel.
01:08:13
Absolutely amazing. Of course,
01:08:19
Dr. Hahn doesn't mention anything about, about that. I guess that's documentary evidence.
01:08:32
There's no evidence that the teaching was seriously challenged or disputed during the period of the fathers. How about there's no evidence they believed it,
01:08:39
Dr. Hahn? Oh, I forgot. Sola Ecclesia.
01:08:45
That's even how you interpret history, isn't it?
01:08:54
Hail Holy Queen, the mother of God and the word of God, is a wonderful example of eisegesis driven by a belief in Sola Ecclesia.
01:09:11
I've always said Rome's doctrines on Mary are the best example of what happens when you abandon
01:09:19
Sola Scriptura and since you have to embrace these things, they, they explain to us exactly why it is that Rome constantly attacks
01:09:27
Sola Scriptura. A person who interprets the Bible in its own context, a person who simply reads more than just one verse at a time, reads a context at all.
01:09:38
Can never possibly come to believe in these things. And so you must attack the sufficiency of Scripture.
01:09:45
You must attack the clarity with which God reveals himself in Scripture to ever cause someone to believe these myths and fantasies as if they're part of the gospel.
01:10:00
I'm very happy that Hail Holy Queen has come out. Oh, I know there could be people who are going to be deceived by it.
01:10:08
That's the nature of our, our day. But you see, for those who have any concern for truth, this is an excellent example of the mythological eisegesis of the
01:10:25
Scriptures that marks not only Rome's doctrines of Mary, but her doctrine of justification, her doctrine of the atonement, her doctrine of papal authority.
01:10:35
It's all the same. They engage in the same kind of Scripture twisting on every one of these levels.
01:10:43
This just shows it so clearly that I do hope that it will shed light upon those who are examining these things.
01:10:54
You might say, you haven't been very nice, James. No, I haven't.
01:11:01
There's no reason to be. This is a twisting of the Scriptures. If you love the
01:11:06
Scriptures, you do not be nice to those who twist it. The apostles weren't.
01:11:14
These individuals are untaught and unstable. That's description of the
01:11:20
Bible. Untaught, unstable. And it's not a matter of being nice to anyone.
01:11:28
It's a matter of where are your priorities. We dare not imbibe the thinking of the world that says, well, okay, so you may disagree with them, but we need to disagree agreeably.
01:11:44
If someone runs around and tells lies about my wife, I'm not going to be very happy with them. I'm probably not going to sit down over dinner with them and just, let's, you know, let's share our different perspectives on this, you know.
01:11:58
You're saying things about my wife and I just don't feel they happen to be true, but I don't want to offend you with that, see.
01:12:10
Scott Hahn's book Hail Holy Queen won't tell you anything about the true Mary of Nazareth. In fact,
01:12:16
I would say to anyone that in reality, Rome's dogma and those who present it like Dr.
01:12:22
Hahn are guilty of anti -Marianism.
01:12:30
Yeah, anti -Marianism. See, when you, when you present a false Mary, a Mary who has never existed, a
01:12:37
Mary who usurps the position of Christ, who allegedly holds positions that the true
01:12:45
Mary would absolutely, her heart would break if she knew what was taught in her name.
01:12:51
That's anti -Marianism. You are opposing the true Mary. You won't find the true Mary in this book.
01:12:57
You'll find a myth, you'll find a legend, you'll find the creation of a religious system of man, but you will not find
01:13:03
Mary anywhere in this book, just as you will not find the gospel in Rome's version either for the very same reason.
01:13:20
Well, such is our review of Hail Holy Queen, and such is this edition of The Dividing Line today.
01:13:28
Thank you for being with us, and I ask that you'll be with us again next week here on the program as we continue to discuss the key issues of Christian apologetics and hopefully inviting your participation next time as well.