Scott Hahn and His Angels

by Timothy F. Kauffman

We often hear from Roman Catholics that we need to get the Catholic position on Mary from Scott Hahn in his four-part tape series on Marian devotion. In fact, Scott Hahn seems to be the authority du jour on matters of Marian devotion and is held in high esteem, at least among those who already practice it.

Mr. Hahn is a former Presbyterian minister turned Roman Catholic, and since I am a former Roman Catholic turned Presbyterian (PCA), many of those who take issue with my criticism of Marian devotion believe that I "obviously have not heard Mr. Hahn's excellent tape series." Presumably, a four-part tape series from a former PCA minister would be enough to cure me of my purported 'anti-Mary' sentiments. But we have heard the tape series by Mr. Hahn, and my greatest concern has more to do with Scott's representation of Christ than his view of Mary. Ultimately, Hahn's unbiblical view of Mary finds its roots in his tainted soteriology, so we must begin there.

In part three of the series, titled, "Mary: Queen of Angels," Scott makes this remarkable statement about the angels over whom Mary is believed (by Catholics) to preside: "Christ is the savior of the angels, as their head, as well as redeemed humanity, as our head, and together we constitute the one family of God. ...these angels are gifts of God, the result of the finished work of Jesus Christ."(Mary: Queen of Angels, side 2) We have to wonder what Scott means by this statement. The Scriptures say, "For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham's descendants. For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people."(Hebrews 2:16-17) Indeed, Christ did not come to make expiation for the sins of angels, but only for the sins of the children of Abraham. The Scriptures say plainly that Christ did not save the angels. Therefore, though He is their Creator, He is not their Savior. Of course, in his lecture, Hahn refers only to the angels in Heaven as being saved, but we ask, 'From what did Christ save them?' Scott does not answer, but the implication is clear: Jesus 'saved' the 'saved' angels from having to be saved, making Him their 'Savior' by default. But Scripture says that Christ came to save His people from their sins (Mt. 1:21)--not to save His angels from committing them. Scott's understanding of what it means to be 'saved' is found wanting.

The Scriptures say that God saves us by placing our sins on Christ and punishing those sins in the Person of Christ on the cross (Isaiah 53:6, Colossians 2:13-14). The Biblical view of salvation presupposes our guilt and we are saved, according to Scripture, by the very fact that the sins we did or will commit were punished in Christ. But Mr. Hahn's view of the salvation of angels supposes that God dealt that fatal blow to His own Son on behalf of the angels for sins that the angels had never committed! We are reminded by Paul that God's justice is wrapped up in our justification, and he writes that God punished our sins in Christ to demonstrate that very thing: "God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished--he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus."(Rom. 3:25-26) The punishment of Christ on the cross exemplifies God's inherent justice and displays for all the world that God is a just God Who punishes sin according to His own perfect standards. But Scott Hahn has God committing a terrific act of injustice: he presumes that God punished Christ on the cross in the place of the angels and crushed Him in agony 'til His heart burst--and did so for sins that the angels had never committed. But Scott goes on.

Hahn teaches (as do most Roman Catholic apologists) that Mary, though conceived immaculately, was saved from having to be saved--based on the merits of Christ's sacrifice. Says Hahn, "Mary's Immaculate Conception ...reveals the greatness and value of Christ's redemptive work. It shows us how the redemptive work of Christ, in its value and power, goes beyond time and space, because before Calvary and before Christ's incarnation, the value and the merits of Christ's work on the cross were able to spill out backwards, overflowing into the past, so that Mary was saved by the work of Christ on Calvary before Calvary, because the work of Christ transcends time and space. It transcends and overcomes any limitation in creation."(Mary: the Immaculate Conception, side 2) But Hahn must answer another question: Does Christ's work on the cross transcend God's justice? Hahn must answer this because his present understanding of salvation has God punishing Christ in the place of Mary for sins that Mary had never committed--a terrible injustice!

If Christ really was punished in the place of angels for sins that the angels had never committed, and in the place of Mary for sins that Mary had never committed, one might be led to believe that Christ's sacrifice was sufficient to save completely--even above and beyond what was necessary. Not so, according to Hahn. Scott Hahn concludes from all of this that the angels enjoy something that we do not: eternal security. Says he, "Angels have what we will have at the end of our marathon. ...Their state of grace is unlosable. Their assurance and their joy is boundless."(Mary: Queen of Angels, side 2) One has to wonder: If Christ saved us from sins we did not commit (which is the logical implication of Hahn's view of the salvation of the angels and of Mary), why did He not go the whole way and save us from sins that we actually did and will commit? After all, isn't that what Gabriel said He would do in Matthew 1:21? What could there possibly be left for Him to do that He did not do on the cross? According to Hahn, Jesus' sacrifice was only sufficient to pay for sins which were never committed. I dare say, that even I would qualify to make such a sacrifice as that! And since, according to Scott Hahn, we do not enjoy eternal security as the angels do, we have to wonder how we can make up the difference? And that is what Scott Hahn leaves us with: an empty gospel which leaves salvation back in the hands of men. This is not good news. Jeremiah 2:22 reprimands the Jews, saying, "'Although you wash yourself with soda and use an abundance of soap, the stain of your guilt is still before me,' declares the Sovereign LORD." Our own efforts have never been enough to pay for sins, and according to Hahn, Christ's death was only enough to pay for sins never committed. We throw up our hands and wonder, "Then who can be saved?"

Contrary to Hahn's understanding of the salvation of angels, the angels in heaven enjoy eternal security not because of Christ's sacrifice, but because of their election, as Paul describes them as "the elect angels" in 1 Timothy 5:21. And contrary to Hahn's understanding of the salvation of man, we enjoy assurance and eternal security because of Christ's sacrifice and because of our election. And since Hahn understands neither of these facts, it is no great wonder that he freely confesses in his lectures that despite all of his devotion to Mary, he has no security at all.