Not By Faith Alone

  • Thread starter Thread starter Randy_Carson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Probably not as familiar?
Yes, probably not.
Let me ask you an honest question. What books, articles have read of Dr. Hahn’s?
I’ve Rome Sweet Home and some of his articles, don’t remember exactly where.
What tape series have you listened to?
I read his debate on justification.
What seminars have you attended?
None.
My assumption is that you might have listened to “Protestant Minister Becomes Catholic.” You might have even read “Rome Sweet Home.”
1 of 2.
In his early days, while producing these, he was indeed an apologist. That is not the case anymore. Dr. Hahn is not an apologist. He has no desire to debate.
Not debating doesn’t mean one is not an apologist.
He has the desire to dig deeper into the theology of the Catholic Church and that laid out in Scripture.
Yes, I’ve heard about his theology of the Holy Spirit being the feminine side of the Trinity. :eek:
Dr. Hahn has read at a dissertation level since before his dissertation.
What seminarian doesn’t? I’ve actually read stuff at the dissertation level. Is that supposed to be impressive?
That is decades worth of reading at that level. Most people stop after the completion of their dissertation. He continues to this day. His library is going to end up being one of the greatest private collections of books in this century.
Once again I know a number of people like that. I have a Pastor friend who is not scholar, but has a library that will rival many scholars.
He is not a scholar and I didn’t call him a “mere apologist”, but a master apologist 🙂 That is how he was defined in reference to his book on covenant theology.
Actually, And if you have not read anything from him, or attended one of his conferences, what do you know about him that would allow you to come to such a conclusion?
Easy. First, if you read any scholarly work on a subject you become aware of other scholars even if you don’t read them. They are interacted with and mentioned in footnotes. I’ve read scholarly works on the Covenant and I’ve never heard anyone mentioned Dr Hahn. Secondly, you can tell by who the book appeals to if it is a scholarly book. Scholarly works are not read in mass by the general public. Finally, if you claim he is no longer an apologist, but instead a scholar then the onus is on you to prove this assertion. and not for me to blindly accept it. By the way I’m aware of Roman Catholic scholar on covenant, Dennis McCarthy. He is deceased now I think, but I’m familiar with him because he is mentioned by the scholars.
 
Finally, if you claim he is no longer an apologist, but instead a scholar then the onus is on you to prove this assertion.
I have not been to this thread in a while and suddenly I see that the debate has turned to whether Dr Hahn is a scholar or not. How sophomoric!
 
I have not been to this thread in a while and suddenly I see that the debate has turned to whether Dr Hahn is a scholar or not. How sophomoric!
Almost all most detatable threads have multi topics 🙂 if it gets worse, the admin will close it.
 
i’ll believe in sola fide when

1)i find a place in the bible directly says “we are justified by faith alone”
2) when james 2:24 magically disapears from my bible
3) when all of the other things which jesus said that we must do for our salvation magically disapears from the bible
4) when i find a place in hte bible which says that believing in sola fide is essential to my salvation

i would more likely put my eternal soul on the line for the catholic teaching on justification than the protestant teaching.
 
Saint John Chrysostom is one - if not the most - revered Church Father in the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Eastern Orthodox Church does not adhere to Sola Fide.

God Bless,
Michael
 
You present these facts as if there is some contradiction in saying that “I have been making this argument” about initial justification and that I have also been talking about what happens afterward. Care to explain how I contradicted myself there SS?
It wasn’t a contradiction, but it was only half of the truth and it was the half that you left out which was the difference. So when you stated you were making the same argument for “15 freeking pages”, you made it seem like we had nothing to debate about, but that was wrong. The “15 freeking pages” of debate is centered on the rest of your argument.
Actually, I have. Simply going further, does not mean I have not made that same argument. Surely you can agree with that?
Yes, I agree with that, but surely would agree with converse? Because you make the same argument at some point does not mean you are not making a different argument at another point.
And you are right. I have been melodramatic at times. I have been on this thread for probably over a month now. I am tired. Yet, I really want to stick with it to it’s conclusion. Thus, I stick around. I am human. I get impatient. Sue me! (Oh come on. The legal vocabularly takes on a bit of irony in this conversation doesn’t it?) 🙂 But most importantly, forgive me!
No problem, I understand. I get frustrated too. As you can see I’ve really let some of the others have it and basically stop responding to their posts. So take it as a compliment that I’m still dialoging with you, it means I feel you are a worthy partner, even though we drive each other up the wall sometimes 
No, I didn’t. I agree with Michael that Chrysostom does not mean God is our debtor prior to initial justification. My assertion has been, from the beginning, that God is our “debtor” only in the sense that he has promised to reward us for the good we do. He didn’t have to make this promise. And it is not a strict contractual payment. Nor is this work we do, done apart from His grace. Since the Catholic believes we are infused with God’s grace in our initial justification, I have not contradicted Chrsysostom or Mike in any way, shape or form.
I don’t fully agree with this but I will not respond here to prevent the many rabbit trails we have going on. I will respond where you responded to my 3 part post.
Sorry, I just don’t think you did. You made a noble attempt, but you fell short.
I will respond to your response where you demonstrated I fell short.
I just don’t see how you came to the conclusion that Chrysostom is NOT saying God is our debtor when he clearly does. So, while you disagree with me, I also disagree with you. Great, it only took us 10 pages of this to get to the same place we started! 🙂
If you read my 3 part post you should have understood why I didn’t think Chrysostom meant that God is our debtor. Here is a brief recap. First, because it is obviously clear that Paul is making the opposite argument, that is God is not our debtor, because it is of grace. Finally, because this is so clear I figured there was more to it than meet the eyes. After reading the full context I think my concerns were valid even though I still don’t agree with Chrysostom use of the phrase what he is means is different from how you were interpreting(i.e. progressive justification ).
I responded to it. I just disagree. I think you read your theology into the other passages. Furthermore, while you addressed those passages that you felt supported your case, you never really addressed the 8-10 other ones that clearly rejected your line of reasoning.
Actually, I addressed that one because it was the first one. I typically don’t like to try and address 8 verses at one time, because it takes too much time.
 
Saint John Chrysostom is one - if not the most - revered Church Father in the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Eastern Orthodox Church does not adhere to Sola Fide.

God Bless,
Michael
Augustine is the most revered Church Father in the Catholicism. The Catholic Church adheres to Papal Infallibility.

Neither proves anything, right?
 
Yes, probably not…
Come on SS, you can be honest. There is no “probably” about it. It’s a certainty.

I’ve Rome Sweet Home and some of his articles, don’t remember exactly where…

Rome Sweet Home was a conversion story. It was also very early on in Dr. Hahn’s career. That had a much greater apologetic nature to it than his recent work. And you read “some articles.” What does that mean? One, two? You don’t even know their titles or even what they were over? How does this qualify you to know whether he is a scholar or not?
I read his debate on justification…
From when?
Not debating doesn’t mean one is not an apologist…
Agreed.

Yes, I’ve heard about his theology of the Holy Spirit being the feminine side of the Trinity. :eek: .

There is nothing wrong with this. He is not teaching it as dogma. It is theological speculation as he freely admits. In fact, he stated he would recant it tom if the Church told him too. In no way does this mean he assigns gender to God. Rather, it simply shows that God has both masculine and feminine qualities. To say it more correctly, God’s qualities of masculinity and femininity are imperfectly and incompletely reflected in man and defined by man.
What seminarian doesn’t? I’ve actually read stuff at the dissertation level. Is that supposed to be impressive?.
For how long? How long have you been reading at that level? Have you been pouring through theology and studying at a doctoral level for the previous 25 years? And plenty of seminarians don’t maintain this level of study after they complete their dissertation. Most do it for a couple to a few years. That’s a big thing that separates a scholar from one who isn’t.
Once again I know a number of people like that. I have a Pastor friend who is not scholar, but has a library that will rival many scholars…
Great! Who is he? What books does he have? How many? Has he read them all? What has he published. Remember, it is not one of these points in isolation, but the totality of them.
He is not a scholar and I didn’t call him a “mere apologist”, but a master apologist 🙂 That is how he was defined in reference to his book on covenant theology…
He is. I personally don’t care whether you agree or not. Give me an objective measuring standard. If you don’t, then it is subjective. Saying that other people mention your work in other scholarly work is not an objective standard. For starters, who defines which work is scholarly in the first place in this instance? Secondly, how many references are mandatory to satisfy your standard? Realize any standard you try to apply is arbitrary and subjective. Thus, this is possibly the most pointless argument of all time. However, I do disagree that you have in someway “locked it down.”
Easy. First, if you read any scholarly work on a subject you become aware of other scholars even if you don’t read them. They are interacted with and mentioned in footnotes. I’ve read scholarly works on the Covenant and I’ve never heard anyone mentioned Dr Hahn. Secondly, you can tell by who the book appeals to if it is a scholarly book. Scholarly works are not read in mass by the general public. Finally, if you claim he is no longer an apologist, but instead a scholar then the onus is on you to prove this assertion. and not for me to blindly accept it. By the way I’m aware of Roman Catholic scholar on covenant, Dennis McCarthy. He is deceased now I think, but I’m familiar with him because he is mentioned by the scholars.
This is a total non-sequitur. For starters, he is relatively new on the scene for scholars. Secondly, simply because YOU have not read books where he is referenced does not mean they don’t exist. Nice try.
 
Wow! I am so glad you find it so important to prove me wrong that you post my name in multiple posts to others. It is a true honor indeed.

BTW, for the record, I think Sungenis is on the same level of scholarship as Dr. Hahn. I simply think Dr. Hahn is better on justification.
That is ironic, because Dr Sungenis was one of the guys I referred to when you made the following comment:

BTW, name dropping a bunch of Catholics that supposedly agree with your position does not impress me. Further, it is entirely different to have Biblical SCHOLARS agree with your position than apologists. I have a great deal of respect for all the names on that list, but there is no question in my mind who the pre-eminent in Biblical scholarship is amongst them. I stand with that man’s interpretation, period.
 
But faith comes first. How can one love that which one has no faith in? Even Hebrews teaches that God is a rewarder of those who have faith and who diligently seek Him. Faith comes first, then love.
Matthew 5:46,47
For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
Luke 6:32-34
For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them.And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same.And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again.
It would seem that Faith, at least the Christian or Jewish faith, does not seem to be required for the capability for Love for as Scripture says even Publicans do so. it might not be a perfect Love but, it still seems to be a love all the same.
 
I would like to get the reference.

God Bless,
Michael
Here ya go.

“But who can fail to be aware that the sacred canon of Scripture, both of the Old and New Testament, is confined within its own limits, and that it stands so absolutely in a superior position to all later letters of the bishops, that about it we can hold no manner of doubt or disputation whether what is confessedly contained in it is right and true; but that all the letters of bishops which have been written, or are being written, since the closing of the canon, are liable to be refuted if there be anything contained in them which strays from the truth, either by the discourse of some one who happens to be wiser in the matter than themselves, or by the weightier authority and more learned experience of other bishops, by the authority of Councils; and further, that the Councils themselves, which are held in the several districts and provinces, must yield, beyond all possibility of doubt, to the authority of plenary Councils which are formed for the whole Christian world; and that even of the plenary Councils, the earlier are often corrected by those which follow them, when, by some actual experiment, things are brought to light which were before concealed, and that is known which previously lay hid, and this without any whirlwind of sacrilegious pride, without any puffing of the neck through arrogance, without any strife of envious hatred, simply with holy humility, catholic peace, and Christian charity” (Augustine “On Baptism, Against the Donatists”, II.III.IV).

Around 413 he stated in a letter to Fortunatianus: I have thought it my duty to quote all these passages from the writings of both Latin and Greek authors who, being in the Catholic Church before our time, have written commentaries on the divine oracles, in order that our brother, if he hold any different opinion from theirs, may know that it becomes him, laying aside all bitterness of controversy, and preserving or reviving fully the gentleness of brotherly love, to investigate with diligent and calm consideration either what he must learn from others, or what others must learn from him. For the reasonings of any men whatsoever, even though they be Catholics, and of high reputation, are not to be treated by us in the same way as the canonical Scriptures are treated. We are at liberty, without doing any violence to the respect which these men deserve, to condemn and reject anything in their writings, if perchance we shall find that they have entertained opinions differing from that which others or we ourselves have, by the divine help, discovered to be the truth. I deal thus with the writings of others, and I wish my intelligent readers to deal thus with mine. (*NPNF1: Vol. I, Letters of St. Augustine, Letter 148, §15. *)
 
It wasn’t a contradiction, but it was only half of the truth and it was the half that you left out which was the difference. So when you stated you were making the same argument for “15 freeking pages”, you made it seem like we had nothing to debate about, but that was wrong. The “15 freeking pages” of debate is centered on the rest of your argument…
Bologna. You have been disagreeing with me on this very thing. You have asserted that somehow I am saying that God is indebted to man prior to his initial justification. I know this because you have made statements to other Catholics here about me not being on the same page in regarding this topic. So while there was plenty of other stuff that we disagreed on, you never acknowledged that this was a major part of my argument. You’re singing a different tune now that I called you on it though. :rolleyes:
Yes, I agree with that, but surely would agree with converse? Because you make the same argument at some point does not mean you are not making a different argument at another point.
Who ever said I wasn’t? That is completely irrelevant. At no time did I make the pont that we had nothing else to disagree on. In fact, I made the statement to the opposite. When? I pointed out that you and Mike do not agree on the complete doctrine of justification, but rather simply that man is initially justified by grace alone through faith, not works. In saying that, I was simply making the point that I have been agreeing on that topic all 15 pages of the thread. Thus, I was surprised with your response to him, because it seemed like you were unfamiliar with Mike’s post over that. Maybe I misunderstood your point there.
No problem, I understand. I get frustrated too. As you can see I’ve really let some of the others have it and basically stop responding to their posts. So take it as a compliment that I’m still dialoging with you, it means I feel you are a worthy partner, even though we drive each other up the wall sometimes .
I appreciate it. I also feel you are worthy. Otherwise, I wouldn’t continue to respond to you. For evidence of this, check out any thread SoonerServant is on. 🙂
I don’t fully agree with this but I will not respond here to prevent the many rabbit trails we have going on. I will respond where you responded to my 3 part post…
Fair enough and thank you!!!
I will respond to your response where you demonstrated I fell short…
That is a noble offer, but I just don’t want to go any further in this. As much as I think John Chrysostom is important for our debate, the best thing to do is get back to the Scriptures. Since I am quite sure that the ECF’s aren’t going to be ultimately convincing to you regardless of whether they agree with me. Should we turn our attention back to the Scriptures?
If you read my 3 part post you should have understood why I didn’t think Chrysostom meant that God is our debtor. Here is a brief recap. First, because it is obviously clear that Paul is making the opposite argument, that is God is not our debtor, because it is of grace. Finally, because this is so clear I figured there was more to it than meet the eyes. After reading the full context I think my concerns were valid even though I still don’t agree with Chrysostom use of the phrase what he is means is different from how you were interpreting(i.e. progressive justification )…
Your first point is circular logic isn’t it? You assumed Pauline theology supported faith alone, so you turned to Chrysostom to prove it. Then you read Chrysostom and assume that he also holds to your Pauline theology, thus interpreting him through your pre-conceived Pauline theology. Not only is it circular, but it begs the question. Simply because you keep inserting your Pauline theology, which you’ve yet to prove, into your interpretation of them. I think you clearly admitted this by making this point.

As for your other point, I just disagreed with your interpretation.
 
Actually, I addressed that one because it was the first one. I typically don’t like to try and address 8 verses at one time, because it takes too much time.
No big deal. I don’t think Chrysostom is going to get us anywhere. Just for the record though, these are the ones I think specifically contradict your position:

"He that believes in the Son has everlasting life" [John 3:36]… ‘Is it enough, then, to believe in the Son,’ someone will say, “in order to have everlasting life?” BY NO MEANS! Listen to Christ declare this Himself when He says, “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord! Lord!’ shall enter into the kingdom of heaven” [Matt 7:21]; and the blasphemy against the Spirit is alone sufficient to cast him into hell. But why should I speak of a part of our teaching? For if a man BELIEVE rightly in the Father and in the Son and in the Holy Spirit, but does not LIVE RIGHTLY, his faith will avail him NOTHING TOWARD SALVATION. (Homilies on John 31:1)

"not through believing only cometh your salvation, but also through the suffering and enduring the same things with us." (Homily on the Second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, NPNF1: Volume 12, page 277)

For, “think not,” saith he, "because ye have believed, that this is sufficient for your salvation: since if to me neither preaching nor teaching nor bringing over innumerable persons, is enough for salvation unless I exhibit my own conduct also unblameable, much less to you. (Homily 23, NPNF1: Volume 12, page 133)

(Galatians 5) Verse 6 "For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith working through love." What is the meaning of "working through love?" Here he gives them a hard blow, by showing that this error had crept in because the love of Christ had not been rooted within them. For to believe is not all that is required, but also to abide in love. (Commentary on Galatians 5, NPNF1: Volume 13, page 37)
 
That is ironic, because Dr Sungenis was one of the guys I referred to when you made the following comment:

BTW, name dropping a bunch of Catholics that supposedly agree with your position does not impress me. Further, it is entirely different to have Biblical SCHOLARS agree with your position than apologists. I have a great deal of respect for all the names on that list, but there is no question in my mind who the pre-eminent in Biblical scholarship is amongst them. I stand with that man’s interpretation, period.
Well, I am not exactly sure what I meant to say here. But it seems to me that I made the point that some of the names on that list were indeed scholars. I think that is implicit in the statement, “pre-eminent in Biblical scholarship amongst them.” If memory serves me, the one that made me think of apologist most was the use of Steve Ray. He is most definitely an apologist. And while I like him a great deal, he is nowhere near the category of Hahn nor Sungenis.

Regardles, I know that this is completely off topic. Dr. Hahn would definitely be upset if he knew I was making this argument in his name. So, I will back out of this argument. Honestly and truthfully, I don’t know how we got to this point. I never envisioned it going here. Oh well.
 
Here ya go.

“But who can fail to be aware that the sacred canon of Scripture, both of the Old and New Testament, is confined within its own limits, and that it stands so absolutely in a superior position to all later letters of the bishops, that about it we can hold no manner of doubt or disputation whether what is confessedly contained in it is right and true; but that all the letters of bishops which have been written, or are being written, since the closing of the canon, are liable to be refuted if there be anything contained in them which strays from the truth, either by the discourse of some one who happens to be wiser in the matter than themselves, or by the weightier authority and more learned experience of other bishops, by the authority of Councils; and further, that the Councils themselves, which are held in the several districts and provinces, must yield, beyond all possibility of doubt, to the authority of plenary Councils which are formed for the whole Christian world; and that even of the plenary Councils, the earlier are often corrected by those which follow them, when, by some actual experiment, things are brought to light which were before concealed, and that is known which previously lay hid, and this without any whirlwind of sacrilegious pride, without any puffing of the neck through arrogance, without any strife of envious hatred, simply with holy humility, catholic peace, and Christian charity” (Augustine “On Baptism, Against the Donatists”, II.III.IV).

Around 413 he stated in a letter to Fortunatianus: I have thought it my duty to quote all these passages from the writings of both Latin and Greek authors who, being in the Catholic Church before our time, have written commentaries on the divine oracles, in order that our brother, if he hold any different opinion from theirs, may know that it becomes him, laying aside all bitterness of controversy, and preserving or reviving fully the gentleness of brotherly love, to investigate with diligent and calm consideration either what he must learn from others, or what others must learn from him. For the reasonings of any men whatsoever, even though they be Catholics, and of high reputation, are not to be treated by us in the same way as the canonical Scriptures are treated. We are at liberty, without doing any violence to the respect which these men deserve, to condemn and reject anything in their writings, if perchance we shall find that they have entertained opinions differing from that which others or we ourselves have, by the divine help, discovered to be the truth. I deal thus with the writings of others, and I wish my intelligent readers to deal thus with mine. (*NPNF1: Vol. I, Letters of St. Augustine, Letter 148, §15. *)
This a bit off topic, but I have to say 4 things:
  1. The Magisterium is established to serve the Word of God and to interpret it for the entire Church. It is thus subject to Divine Revelation.
  2. No reference is made about the Pope not being infallible. He is only infallible when he is formally defining a teaching on faith and morals ex cathedra.
  3. An Ecumenical Council is only valid when approved by the Pope.
  4. Individual bishops, local councils, and any plenary councils not approved by the Pope are fallible.
God Bless,
Michael
 
Isn’t it curious that the Apostle Paul used the word “faith” and related terms more than 200 times in the New Testament, yet he never once used the phrase “faith alone”?

This seems strange considering how concerned Paul was with passing on the faith accurately and the means to justification would be among the most important truths he would preach. In fact, throughout all of his works, he goes to great lengths to choose his words with precision, so it seems odd that “faith alone” does not appear once in all of his writings.

This is even more surprising given the fact that Paul also used the words “alone” and “only” more than any other New Testament author. Clearly, Paul was well-accustomed to using these powerful qualifiers.

Could it be that the Holy Spirit prevented Paul from ever writing “faith alone” to describe the process of justification? And that same check prevented any of the gospel writers from ascribing “faith alone” to Jesus, either.

In fact, the only time that the Holy Spirit allowed any author to use that infamous phrase, is when He inspired James to write, “You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.” (James 2:24)

Therefore, for those who propose that Paul taught justification by faith alone, a very haunting question remains: Why didn’t Paul use the specific phrase “faith alone” anywhere in his New Testament writings?
“The burden of proof rests upon those who insist that the doctrine of justification be taught by using language that Scripture itself does not use.”

Robert Sungenis, How Can I Get To Heaven?​
 
Come on SS, you can be honest. There is no “probably” about it. It’s a certainty.
Hmmm … I will stick with probably.
Rome Sweet Home was a conversion story. It was also very early on in Dr. Hahn’s career. That had a much greater apologetic nature to it than his recent work. And you read “some articles.” What does that mean? One, two? You don’t even know their titles or even what they were over? How does this qualify you to know whether he is a scholar or not?
I never said that qualified me to know whether he was a scholar or not. All I was doing was answering your questions. Remember? My rationale for saying he was not a scholar is given below.
From when?
It was in the late 90s.
40.png
Redbandito:
40.png
SolaScriptura:
Yes, I’ve heard about his theology of the Holy Spirit being the feminine side of the Trinity. :eek: .
There is nothing wrong with this. He is not teaching it as dogma. It is theological speculation as he freely admits. In fact, he stated he would recant it tom if the Church told him too. In no way does this mean he assigns gender to God. Rather, it simply shows that God has both masculine and feminine qualities. To say it more correctly, God’s qualities of masculinity and femininity are imperfectly and incompletely reflected in man and defined by man.
Yeah, tell that to Robert Sungenis:
catholicintl.com/catholicissues/sungenis-michael1.htm
catholicintl.com/catholicissues/triple1.htm
For how long? How long have you been reading at that level? Have you been pouring through theology and studying at a doctoral level for the previous 25 years? And plenty of seminarians don’t maintain this level of study after they complete their dissertation. Most do it for a couple to a few years. That’s a big thing that separates a scholar from one who isn’t.
Probably about 3 years for me. Reading What is the magical number of years one must read to become a scholar, because it seems like you think that is an important factor? You could read for 50 years from my perspective and that doesn’t make you a scholar.
Great! Who is he? What books does he have? How many? Has he read them all? What has he published. Remember, it is not one of these points in isolation, but the totality of them.
His books are in the 1000s and yes he has read them and yes he is published. I’ve learned a lot from him 😉
He is. I personally don’t care whether you agree or not. Give me an objective measuring standard. If you don’t, then it is subjective. Saying that other people mention your work in other scholarly work is not an objective standard. For starters, who defines which work is scholarly in the first place in this instance? Secondly, how many references are mandatory to satisfy your standard? Realize any standard you try to apply is arbitrary and subjective. Thus, this is possibly the most pointless argument of all time. However, I do disagree that you have in someway “locked it down.”
Your standard is more objective, but it is useless, “He has been reading at the dissertation level for 25 years”. Try this, it should get you in the ballpark and it is not that far off from what I have been saying.
uovs.ac.za/faculties/documents/11/459/10281-What%20is%20a%20Scholar.pdf
This is a total non-sequitur. For starters, he is relatively new on the scene for scholars. Secondly, simply because YOU have not read books where he is referenced does not mean they don’t exist. Nice try.
He is relatively new on the scene for scholars? How do you know he is on the scene? When did he get on the scene?
Also, I gave you cumulative reasons why I don’t believe he is a scholar. The number one reason is that I don’t see where he has produced any scholarly work. All of his stuff is for public consumption. However, like I said the onus is on you to provide the information that he is a scholar since you made the positive assertion. Reading a lot at the dissertation level or doctorate level doesn’t prove anything. By the way what is a lot? 50 books a year? 20 a year? 10 a year? 5?
 
I never said that qualified me to know whether he was a scholar or not. All I was doing was answering your questions. Remember? My rationale for saying he was not a scholar is given below.?
Well then, how is that you reject he is a scholar? Again, with the limited knowledge you possess of his work, how are you qualified to make this judgment? That is not a rhetorical question. It is sincere.
Personally I don’t care what Bob says on the matter. There are several things I disagree with him on. I think has done great work. I thoroughly enjoyed his books “Not by Faith Alone” "Not by Scripture Alone"and “Not by Bread Alone.” He is very talented, but he has limitations like all of us. It just so happens that when I disagree with him, I reeeeeaaaaally disagree with him (i.e. matters of science). Secondly, I already told you I respect Dr. Hahn’s opinion on Biblical theology more than Bob’s.
Probably about 3 years for me. Reading What is the magical number of years one must read to become a scholar, because it seems like you think that is an important factor? You could read for 50 years from my perspective and that doesn’t make you a scholar.
That’s precisely my point! Most read at that level for a period of time. Scholars do it for a lifetime!

And while you are correct about your 50 years comment not be a direct cause/effect relationship, the two are highly correlated. And for the record, I don’t think there is a magical number. That was my point before. If you want to objectify the term scholar, you have to define it using verifiable categories. I personally believe it is a very subjective term, as previously stated, and thus don’t think it is possible to objectify it. It’s kind of like the Protestant response to Catholics: “How many works do I have to do to be good enough?” Of course the response is that there is no exact number. It is, rather, a response to and cooperation with God’s grace. In the same way, there are no amount of years that qualify one as a scholar. Yet, how many scholars read at a high level for 2-3 years and then fall off? My guess is, very few.
His books are in the 1000s and yes he has read them and yes he is published. I’ve learned a lot from him 😉
Well good. Maybe he is a scholar too. 🙂
Your standard is more objective, but it is useless, “He has been reading at the dissertation level for 25 years”. Try this, it should get you in the ballpark and it is not that far off from what I have been saying.
uovs.ac.za/faculties/documents/11/459/10281-What%20is%20a%20Scholar.pdf.
I agree that it is useless. That is my point. There is no such thing as an objective measure for scholarship. That was truly my point before in trying to get you to quantify it.
He is relatively new on the scene for scholars? How do you know he is on the scene? When did he get on the scene?
Also, I gave you cumulative reasons why I don’t believe he is a scholar. The number one reason is that I don’t see where he has produced any scholarly work. All of his stuff is for public consumption. However, like I said the onus is on you to provide the information that he is a scholar since you made the positive assertion. Reading a lot at the dissertation level or doctorate level doesn’t prove anything. By the way what is a lot? 50 books a year? 20 a year? 10 a year? 5?
Again, I don’t think it is an exact science. He has been known as an apologist for so long, I think a lot of people still think of him in this way. Yet, there has been a distinct jump in his level and scope of work in the last 5-10 years. He and Curtis Mitch have taken on a complete Biblical Commentary called the Ignatius Bible Study. He has produced Catechesis and Biblical literacy programs for Catholic parishes across the nation. He has undertaken the Letter and Spirit articles. I think these are all signs of his growth in scholarship. Regardless, I don’t think there is any onus here. Again, I think there is a lot of subjectivity to it. I don’t believe you have to agree with me. I will not try to prove it to you since it is not really essential for my point on this thread. I am simply stating an opinion. You are free to disagree.

And I would estimate he reads about between 100-200 books a year minimum. He spends about 10-12 hours a day reading and writing from what I understand.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top