I think he’s parodying godless libs.
The humor there, was in reference to particular aspects of "Romanist" discussions (and even dogma) concerning Paul and the other Apostles, in regards to relationship and "station" between and concerning the several -- those items having been previously discussed upon numerous occasion, and at some lengths, on these (FR RF) pages. In fact, it touches upon (or at least --- makes oblique reference to) oft repeated claim and alleged grounds for justification of "Romanist" supremacy.
Should I draw for a map for those who didn't "get it"? Or would that be as yet another "new gate" to moo at, leaving map-making in this instance, a fools errand?
Dontcha' know all this stuff already? Try to keep up. Why must this need explaining? For years...this has been like one long, drawn-out conversation. I remember things which have been said, held to be "truth" (frequently -- up one side and down the other) by FRomans here. Obviously, AM does too.
That AM is not understood -- or is woefully misunderstood --- is no surprise to himself, myself, and possibly other observers...but what is surprising (in part) concerning this particular article, sourced as it is from Hahn, is that Hahn makes no overt Romanist supremacy claims in this particular article (as per his own usual "style" --- "up with Rome" "down with all doctrinal understanding/expression outside of her", or in conflict with some *aspect*) but instead restricts himself to such as;
with the latter portion, denying that one can be sealed in Christ truly once and for all (as much NT scripture does indeed indicate) leaves man not able to in truth cry unto the Father (The Holy Creator, "God the Father") by spirit of adoption, even as this one Apostle whom Hahn chooses here to focus upon (Paul) went to some lengths to repeatedly explain, touching upon the very issue numerous times throughout his own writings, with that unwavering truth woven in thoroughly, throughout his own texts...
Now that one can indeed be sealed unto salvation, once and for all time, by the blood of Christ --- that is (or at least once was, again, much according to Paul) one of the central teachings of the earliest, most primitive, "church", does not mean that the former, or earlier portion of Hahn's statement of is not true.
For as he says (to which I, and/or many or most, most heartily agree);
At this juncture --- perhaps it may help to suggest that it is truly not an either/or proposition, as the more complete quotation of Hahn's which I have selected portrays things ("things" being the truth, concerning salvation) to be, for he repeats an oft stated false dichotomy, while this instead (the truth) is one of those instances not either/or , but rather both.
And no, Judas the betrayer (for example) was never "saved", then "lost it". He never truly HAD IT, in the first place.