Hi Donna
Hahn does not persuade me at all. But he certainly does drag them in.

I think he works best with ex-Catholics, but not with died-in-the-wool Baptists, with a Reformed understanding of the Scriptures.

We recently farewelled one of our families, courtesy of Mr Hahn, but it is hard to understand how those who understood the Scriptures could be taken in.

As a Catholic I believe that Jesus has saved me from sin and that His sacrifice is once and for all.  That is official Catholic teaching.

How about this?

Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit, and the door, which gives access to the other sacraments. Through baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission; Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word.’ Catechism of the Catholic Church (paragrpah 1213)

Romans 1:16-17; 3:21-26 refutes this - one is soley justified because of Jesus propitiatory sacrifice at the cross which is why God does not ask sinners to work for, earn, or be baptised for justification. Rather they are told to believe.

But then there is this

If anyone says that the faith which justifies is nothing else but trust in the divine mercy, which pardons sins because fo Christ; or that it is that trust alone by which we are justified: let him be anathema - Council of Trent, Session 6 “Decree on Justification”, canon 12

If anyone says that… the justified person, by good deeds done by hm through the grace of God and the merits of Jesus Christ (of whom he is a living member), does not truly merit an increase of grace...let him be anathema. Council of Trent, Session 6, “Decree on Justification, “Chapter 10, translated from Schroeder H. J, Canons and Decress of the Council of Trent, (Rockford, Illinois, Tan Books, 1978)

Hi Timbo,
First of all, the churches of Corinth etc were not admonished by scripture, but the authority of the Apostles, predominately Peter.  Before I go on to answer your questions, first of all answer this question: who decided the books of the bible?  History will tell you that there were many writings that were worthy of inclusion to the Bible but were not included.  The New Testament canon was formed at the Council of Carthage in 397AD.  Read the writings of the early Church Fathers and you will see this.  Where in the Bible does it tell us that these words are inspired? (They are, I know) And finally, how on earth did Christians cope for many centuries without a hard copy of sacred scripture.  The printing press wasn’t invented for over a thousand years. 
In response to your question re Christ founding a visible Church.  Jesus told Peter that your are the Rock and upon this Rock I will build My Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.  Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven and whatever you loose on earth will be loose in Heaven.  Why would Jesus change Peter’s name.  This word that Jesus used was only ever used in the Old Testament to name God.  Jews would have seen a change of name as significant.  Remember Jacob was named Israel (Gen 32:28), Eliacim to Joakim (2Kings 23:34).
Getting back to Peter as Rock.  The word Cephas (Peter’s name) is a transliteration of the Aramaic Kepha into Greek.  Kepha means rock.  The Greek word for rock, petra, and feminine in gender and would not be used in this instance.  Jesus spoke Aramaic not Greek.
As for the infallibility of the Church and the Pope.  A short explanation.  Jn 16:13 - explains the protection of the Holy Spirit; Luke 22:32 - “I have prayed that they faith may not fail”; 1Tim 3:15.  If individual Catholics or Christians fail that does not take anything from the promise of Christ that the gates will not prevail against the Church.  Even if one member was left, it would still prove Jesus meant what he said.

How a Baptist can say they are reformed , when the whole Calvinistic theological system revolves around the covenat , of which infant baptism is an intrinsic part...read what Calvin has to say about baptists or anabaptists...not only do you cherry pick the Scriptures but Calvin’sInstitutes!

However I am grrateful that you prove me point that Scripture is discerned differently to many Evangelical persons..although they dismiss this by calling baptism a secondary issue.Read Lloyd-Jones, What is an Evangelical ( Banner of Truth)

Baptism ... a solemn commandment of the Lord a secondary issue.!

Hi Robert. A Christian has to cherry pick what people say, keep the cherries, but spit out the pips, in order to be faithful to the Scriptures.

Calvin had a lot of good things to say, but covenant theology and infant baptism are clearly among the pips.

But what he says that conforms to the Word of God is gold.

I don’t actually like the term Reformed but prefer to firstly replace it with Reforming and then to humbly discard that and settle on Conforming.

But I think calling myself Reformed makes clear that I believe in the biblical doctrines of grace, and in the sovereignty of God. But this isn’t going to lead me to discard the things Calvin hadn’t grasped.

Hi David,
Respectfully, they did not understand scripture.
The Holy Spirit guides me when I read scripture.  Why is it that my interpretation is different to yours and likewise your interpretation is different to many different flavours of Christians.
Regarding Scott Hahn.  He is actually not pulling in ex-Catholics as much as he is pulling in Bible Believing Christians.  Many of whom were Ministers who made the incredible sacrifice of not just losing family and friends because of their conversion, but also being unemployed.  Why would you do it if you were not completely sure the Catholic Church has the fullness of faith.

Joshua,
No I’m not a naughty little girl. Let’s be charitable, not sarcastic.
Nothing that the Council of Trent says in any way contradicts Sacred Scripture.  Do you think that Peter was a heretic when he said that Baptism now saves you. 1 Peter 3, 20-21.  Peter clearly believes that through Jesus’ death and resurrection we are saved.  He also believes that Baptism saves.
Faith and good works.  None of these are possible without Grace.  So our faith is a free gift from God and so are our good works.  We can take no credit.  The Council of Trent nor any other Council contradicts this.  Read in context.

G’day Donna,

Thanks for getting back to me so quickly with such a thorough reply.

Donna Green - 18 July 2008 06:17 PM

Hi Timbo,
First of all, the churches of Corinth etc were not admonished by scripture, but the authority of the Apostles, predominately Peter.

Actually, it was predominantly Paul, but I don’t really mind which one of the Apostles it was at the level that it was done through words written down that were (as you rightly say) given the authority of scripture - I presume this means you agree that there is no discrpeancy between the authoritative spoken words of an apostle and the written records of those words in the books of the NT?

Donna Green - 18 July 2008 06:17 PM

Before I go on to answer your questions, first of all answer this question: who decided the books of the bible?  History will tell you that there were many writings that were worthy of inclusion to the Bible but were not included.

What writings were these? Why weren’t they included? Who decdied that they shouldn’t be included? If it was the church of Rome that decided they should not be included when, as you have argued, they were worthy of it, doesn’t that dent the church of Rome’s claim of infallibility?

Donna Green - 18 July 2008 06:17 PM

Where in the Bible does it tell us that these words are inspired? (They are, I know)

See the promises made to the Apostles in John 14 and Acts 1-2 that they would be empowered by the Holy Spirit (the Spirit of truth , as Jesus puts it in John 14) to be Jesus witnesses - I take it that you agree that the Holy Spirit speaking through the apostles was a faithful witness to Christ?.

Donna Green - 18 July 2008 06:17 PM

And finally, how on earth did Christians cope for many centuries without a hard copy of sacred scripture.  The printing press wasn’t invented for over a thousand years.

Who says they didn’t have a hard copy? There were many handwritten copies made of the letters, bypassing the need for a printing press to be invented. This is one of the reasons why we can have such confidence in the scritptures, as there are so many early copies (hundreds in some cases) which date back so close to the time of authorship and which have only minor variations between each other.

Donna Green - 18 July 2008 06:17 PM

In response to your question re Christ founding a visible Church.

I didn’t ask any question about Jesus founding a visible church, rather about (what I thought you were claiming was) an infallible church. Is this what you mean by visible? And I have to ask again, for clarity’s sake, as I don’t understand the terms you use, by preserve do you mean make infallible?

Donna Green - 18 July 2008 06:17 PM

Jesus told Peter that your are the Rock and upon this Rock I will build My Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.  Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven and whatever you loose on earth will be loose in Heaven.  Why would Jesus change Peter’s name.  This word that Jesus used was only ever used in the Old Testament to name God.  Jews would have seen a change of name as significant.  Remember Jacob was named Israel (Gen 32:28), Eliacim to Joakim (2Kings 23:34).
Getting back to Peter as Rock.  The word Cephas (Peter’s name) is a transliteration of the Aramaic Kepha into Greek.  Kepha means rock.  The Greek word for rock, petra, and feminine in gender and would not be used in this instance.  Jesus spoke Aramaic not Greek.

I’m sorry, but I don’t see how this shows that the church of Rome - even allowing for it being established by Peter - would be infallible. Why wouldn’t any other church established by Peter be infallible on the basis you have presented above?

Donna Green - 18 July 2008 06:17 PM

As for the infallibility of the Church and the Pope.  A short explanation.  Jn 16:13 - explains the protection of the Holy Spirit; Luke 22:32 - “I have prayed that they faith may not fail”; 1Tim 3:15.  If individual Catholics or Christians fail that does not take anything from the promise of Christ that the gates will not prevail against the Church.  Even if one member was left, it would still prove Jesus meant what he said.

Ummm ... can you explain to me how any of this relates to the infalliblity of the leader of the church of Rome, or the infallibility of the church he leads? John 16:13 is addressed to the Apostles, Luke 22:32 specifically to Peter, and 1 Tim 3:15 to Timothy as he leads the church at Ephesus. I am perplexed!

Thanks for the discussion & have a good weekend.

Timbo

Donna,

Nothing that the Council of Trent says in any way contradicts Sacred Scripture.

I think it would be helpful if you read my post again. Or perhaps read below

If anyone says that the faith which justifies is nothing else but trust in the divine mercy, which pardons sins because fo Christ; or that it is that trust alone by which we are justified: let him be anathema - Council of Trent, Session 6 “Decree on Justification”, canon 12

and compare that with Titus 3:4-5 or Ephesians 2:8-9 or Romans 3:21-28 or Colossians 1:21-23. Also John 1:12, 3:16; Galatians 3:26.

Joshua

Do you think that Peter was a heretic when he said that Baptism now saves you. 1 Peter 3, 20-21.  Peter clearly believes that through Jesus’ death and resurrection we are saved.  He also believes that Baptism saves.

Hi Donna
Peter clarifies what he means by going on to say that he is not merely talking about water, but about the confession made when a person is baptised. The context shows he is talking about a repentant believer being baptised and confessing faith in Christ.

He is not at all talking about a baby being regenerated merely by being “baptised.”

Amen brother David.

PS have you seen the new thread I just launched?

JOshua, Tim and David,
I’ll get back to you with an explanation.  Have to go out for dinner.
If I have proved anything today it is that interpreting scripture on our own can manifest many different beliefs, even if we claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit.
Goodnight to you all

Donna Green - 18 July 2008 06:26 PM

Hi David,
Respectfully, they did not understand scripture.
The Holy Spirit guides me when I read scripture. Why is it that my interpretation is different to yours and likewise your interpretation is different to many different flavours of Christians.

Donna’s off the forum at the moment, but I’m surprised no one has taken her up on the bit I’ve bolded above.  What makes Donna so sure the HS guides HER in reading/interpreting the Bible, and not others?

Dan Baynes - 18 July 2008 09:06 PM

Donna Green - 18 July 2008 06:26 PM

Hi David,
Respectfully, they did not understand scripture.
The Holy Spirit guides me when I read scripture. Why is it that my interpretation is different to yours and likewise your interpretation is different to many different flavours of Christians.

Donna’s off the forum at the moment, but I’m surprised no one has taken her up on the bit I’ve bolded above.  What makes Donna so sure the HS guides HER in reading/interpreting the Bible, and not others?

I took her to be making that statement as an example of the evangelical approach to Scripture, which she then refutes with her questions.  Guess we’ll have to wait to find out!

I take it that the Holy Spirit guides us by showing us things in conformity with other scriptures, not in contradiction to the rest of Scripture.

I guess Donna’s post is a warning to all of us. If we think the Spirit is guiding us, because we are being led to interpret the Scriptures in harmony with the teaching of our church, we need to examine carefully if the teaching of our church conforms to the Scriptures.