Scott Hahn

[notsmart]

I can understand this. I hope you can understand, I am not like you, who at an early age, had the grace of God.

I am new to this, and therefore I question. As the Bereans did.

So far, the Catholic Church holds its own.

Still, I like you- have questions.

But- I am hesitant to judge any other christian, like Hahn-

Because we know what St. Paul’s teacher said about that!

i just said your profile said you hadn’t figured out religion yet.

i have been a christian since i was baptized in 1954, but there were many years that i didn’t have religion figured out yet either. and, i will confess, i still don’t. i will be trying to figure it out until i breathe my last breath probably.

i am sure there are many jewish people who were bar mitzvahed or bat mitzvahed who don’t have it figured out either.

we are all in the same boat.

i wasn’t there when the hebrews decided which books were going to be in the Hebrew Bible and i wasn’t there when the Gospels were composed or
they decided what was going to complete the New Testament.

sometimes you just have to jump in feet first. you can sit on the sidelines your whole life saying you don’t have everything figured out. and if you wait until you have it all figured out, it might be too late.

 

[notsmart]

I didn’t see that at all in the thread (notwithstanding the ‘skewed’ monetary gain critics). There were only a handful of posters who were critical. They may or may not have a theology background, but that really is immaterial to the argument.

Let’s say I have no theological background (which I do), but have read a great deal of the fathers (which I have), and posit that Scott Hahn’s approach to Adam’s fall is novel, and finds no precedent in the Church Fathers; therefore I am skeptical of such an approach.

That’s not a case of “holier than the pope”

Correct, but also wrong in a way.

The better way would be to see the good, not the bad.

Unless- I am wrong about how we should view such people who stand for Christ Crucifyed?

In cases as you cite, if there was a real theological problem, there would be a council called.

Granted, Hahn is not a Bishop.

But, does anyone think Benedict is sleeping during all this?

Can’t we all trust him?

I do.

He has not condemned Scott.

Who is anyone here to?

 

[Cinette]

Now, now children behave yourselves! - play nicely!:dancing: :bounce:

Shame on us! Bickering and criticising!

When Protestant Ministers convert to the CC they do so courageously - they give up so much. Scott Hahn was one of them. He had no idea what was to come!

Then because of his talent he wrote books and made tapes which sold like hot cakes. Now are we to censure him for that? Can’t we be happy for him?

Do any of us know how he spends his money? Is it any of our business?

Some of us attack his theology and in parts were PROVED WRONG. I am no theologian and I say that I trust the Magisterium. So, what is good enough for the CC is good enough for me!

Scott Hahn is a good Catholic and a good example and a smart and talented man. Yes, and he has brought a lot of people into the Church. Many converts mention him in their testimonies.:yup:

So why do some of us INSIST on putting him down? Does this not reflect on US rather than on him?

Some of us are going to have to go to Confession!

Have a good day!:yup:

/COLOR]

 

[anon52328184]

I can understand this. I hope you can understand, I am not like you, who at an early age, had the grace of God.

I am new to this, and therefore I question. As the Bereans did.

So far, the Catholic Church holds its own.

Still, I like you- have questions.

But- I am hesitant to judge any other christian, like Hahn-

Because we know what St. Paul’s teacher said about that!

well, this is all new to me too. whatever grace i had at an early age, i lost long ago and i am trying to get it back. i didn’t give much thought to right churches and wrong churches. i have explored a lot of religions and knew that the journey would not be complete without joining the Catholic church. i am still learning about the Catholic church and what she believes and stands for and how she was created. i don’t proclaim to be a perfect Catholic or the best Catholic and i don’t want to set myself up to be that.
i don’t know that i was judging Scott Hahn, but merely making an observation.
i am not a little miss goody two shoes and if that is what i have to be to be a Catholic, then i will have a long road to walk. i am thankful that i have made it to 56 years old and God is still giving me the chance to work on my life.
i have to work at it at my own speed. i just became a Catholic in July, so i am not a Bible scholar yet! give me another month or so! LOL then i can argue allegories with you.

 

[Cinette]

Parish priests do not take a vow of poverty.
Scott Hahn did not take a vow of poverty.

WHO SAID SCOTT HAHN IS A PARISH PRIEST!!! Ai! Ai! Ai! :extrahappy:

 

[AnyoneAnybody]

Funny bunny… Seems like I was veering towards a syllogism there.

AnyoneAnybody;4108477:

Parish priests do not take a vow of poverty.
Scott Hahn did not take a vow of poverty.

WHO SAID SCOTT HAHN IS A PARISH PRIEST!!! Ai! Ai! Ai!

:extrahappy:

 

[mtr01]

Correct, but also wrong in a way.

The better way would be to see the good, not the bad.

Actually, it’s not wrong in any way. You seem to be engaging in a logical fallacy called appeal to emotion. If I disagree with someone’s thesis, or prefer someone else’s, there is no requirement that I see the good in the position I disagree with. For instance, if I stated I didn’t like heavy metal music and am skeptical about how the lyrics could edify anyone, would you protest that I should see the good in heavy metal music (unless of course you are a fan of such music and appeal to emotion) and am wrong for not doing so? Similarly, if I stated that I’m skeptical of Scott’s Hahn’s theory about “x”, and think (say) Karl Keating’s theory on “x” is better, am I wrong for thinking so? Another phrase comes to mind: “de gustibus non est disputandem”.

Unless- I am wrong about how we should view such people who stand for Christ Crucifyed?

No one is attacking Scott Hahn the person (except for the “fringe” critiques about him making money), but rather disagreeing with his theology. Because he is engaging in speculative theology, not systematic theology, his theories are, by definition, theological speculations and are subject to scrutiny. As speculations, they may freely be rejected - especially his theological novelties. However, again, this has nothing to do with him as a person.

In cases as you cite, if there was a real theological problem, there would be a council called.

Granted, Hahn is not a Bishop.

But, does anyone think Benedict is sleeping during all this?

Can’t we all trust him?

I do.

The Church doesn’t call a council to deal every novel theological speculation, nor does the CDC censor every theologian who utters a wayward thought. In Hahn’s case, there are enough peers to set him straight if he goes off track. He seems to be a faithful Catholic subject to correction, so I seriously doubt anyone’s salvation is put in jeopardy by reading his works. I don’t think it’s a matter of trust.

He has not condemned Scott.

Who is anyone here to?

I don’t think anyone here has “condemned” him. This again appears to be an overly emotional response to his criticisms. For what it’s worth I won’t condemn him, I just have never felt the desire to read any of his works (or I should say read anymore that I have to to keep up with current topics), nor do i ever think I will. I get all the edification I need reading the likes of Newman, Von Hildebrand, Sheed, Chesterton and the like.

 

[anon52328184]

I can understand this. I hope you can understand, I am not like you, who at an early age, had the grace of God.

I am new to this, and therefore I question. As the Bereans did.

So far, the Catholic Church holds its own.

Still, I like you- have questions.

But- I am hesitant to judge any other christian, like Hahn-

Because we know what St. Paul’s teacher said about that!

well, i don’t know what your background is. i don’t know how long you have been trying to figure out religion or what that has included. that is good to have questions and ask them. however, i am not the one with all of the answers! my knowledge is limited. there are people on here who have studied theology, philosophy and many other Catholic related subjects and who are more grounded in their faith than i am. i don’t know if you are trying to figure out the difference between protestants and catholics, or mormons or jehovah witnesses or buddhism or judaism. i am someone who is honest and i am not afraid to be honest and i don’t profess to be perfect.

 

[anon52328184]

Actually, it’s not wrong in any way. You seem to be engaging in a logical fallacy called appeal to emotion. If I disagree with someone’s thesis, or prefer someone else’s, there is no requirement that I see the good in the position I disagree with. For instance, if I stated I didn’t like heavy metal music and am skeptical about how the lyrics could edify anyone, would you protest that I should see the good in heavy metal music (unless of course you are a fan of such music and appeal to emotion) and am wrong for not doing so? Similarly, if I stated that I’m skeptical of Scott’s Hahn’s theory about “x”, and think (say) Karl Keating’s theory on “x” is better, am I wrong for thinking so? Another phrase comes to mind: “de gustibus non est disputandem”.

No one is attacking Scott Hahn the person (except for the “fringe” critiques about him making money), but rather disagreeing with his theology. Because he is engaging in speculative theology, not systematic theology, his theories are, by definition, theological speculations and are subject to scrutiny. As speculations, they may freely be rejected - especially his theological novelties. However, again, this has nothing to do with him as a person.

The Church doesn’t call a council to deal every novel theological speculation, nor does the CDC censor every theologian who utters a wayward thought. In Hahn’s case, there are enough peers to set him straight if he goes off track. He seems to be a faithful Catholic subject to correction, so I seriously doubt anyone’s salvation is put in jeopardy by reading his works. I don’t think it’s a matter of trust.

I don’t think anyone here has “condemned” him. This again appears to be an overly emotional response to his criticisms. For what it’s worth I won’t condemn him, I just have never felt the desire to read any of his works (or I should say read anymore that I have to to keep up with current topics), nor do i ever think I will. I get all the edification I need reading the likes of Newman, Von Hildebrand, Sheed, Chesterton and the like.

this is one of the few posts i have read on here that makes any sense.
thank you for not being overly emotional and tryiing to put things into the right perspective. i especially liked the first and last paragraphs.

 

[anon52328184]

I never mentioned the Last Supper. To be frank, I think its the crux of everything.
I do not see it as an allegory.
I see it very literally.
I am asking you to share the hope you have.

If this is it, well----

God bless you

But, you are not at all going to win many over with this style of …???

Peace

I can see why you were the reason for this thread…

i guess it is too bad that the other poster ron conte is not here right now to give you his viewpoints since he was also the first reason for this thread. the person who started this thread was angry at the skeptics of scott hahn. i know what his motives were for starting the thread and they were not good ones, but that did not scare me away nor did it scare ron conte away. for someone that is trying to figure religion out, you take on a holier than thou attitude - when you said you hadn’t figured it out yet, i thought that meant you were an atheist or agnostic. also, i am not here to win anyone over. whatever gave you that idea? i simply made my point and it did not matter to me how many people agreed or disagreed with me. i am not afraid to think for myself and not go along with the crowd. i hope you have a better day tomorrow.

Poor cathesis.

Scott Hahn is a very educated man.

He does not use your tactics.

 

[anon52328184]

I never mentioned the Last Supper. To be frank, I think its the crux of everything.
I do not see it as an allegory.
I see it very literally.
I am asking you to share the hope you have.

If this is it, well----

God bless you

But, you are not at all going to win many over with this style of …???

Peace

I can see why you were the reason for this thread…

Poor cathesis.

Scott Hahn is a very educated man.

He does not use your tactics.

why would i want to be winning anyone over? for what? i stated my point and i do not care how many do or do not agree with me. did anyone ever tell you that you have an attitude? i think your name notsmart is misleading.
it should be toosmart. LOL

also, i was not the primary reason for the thread. there was another poster.
the person who started this thread only wanted to cause an argument and he knew what would happen when the thread was started, but that did not scare me away or the other poster ron.

when you said you were trying to figure religion out i thought maybe you were an atheist or an agnostic.

 

[AnyoneAnybody]

I agree that all theological speculation shoule be subjected to scrutiny. Unfortunately, no one on this blog as done so.

People have criticized more than his money making. They accused him of misleading Catholics away from Catholic doctrine with his theological speculation and of forcing students to buy his own books for the purpose of profit (the goes beyond money-making- this is an charge speaking to his ethics).

I firmly feel that it is healthy to critique his theological speculation particularly by offering alternative explanations for the same Biblical data. I don’t know whether his theological specualtions can survive the test of rival hypotheses.

I also firmly feel his theological speculation has done no harm to Catholics because he in NO way is questioning nor replacing Church doctrine.

Re: No one is attacking Scott Hahn the person (except for the “fringe” critiques about him making money), but rather disagreeing with his theology. Because he is engaging in speculative theology, not systematic theology, his theories are, by definition, theological speculations and are subject to scrutiny.

 

[Joe_5859]

I agree that all theological speculation shoule be subjected to scrutiny. Unfortunately, no one on this blog as done so.

People have criticized more than his money making. They accused him of misleading Catholics away from Catholic doctrine with his theological speculation and of forcing students to buy his own books for the purpose of profit (the goes beyond money-making- this is an charge speaking to his ethics).

I firmly feel that it is healthy to critique his theological speculation particularly by offering alternative explanations for the same Biblical data. I don’t know whether his theological specualtions can survive the test of rival hypotheses.

I also firmly feel his theological speculation has done no harm to Catholics because he in NO way is questioning nor replacing Church doctrine.

Exactly right. I have yet to see any verification anywhere of one of his theological speculations which, when properly understood, would lead people away from authentic Church teaching.

His ideas can be scrutinized. They may be right. They may be wrong. But even if they are wrong, none of them are leading anyone into sin or further away from the Church.

 

[juliamajor]

Ron,

On a different note, I’d like to learn something that you may be able to teach me if you have the time. As I said, I have not made my way to the best theology journals.

Would you happen to know of a theologian who is doing exciting work in a top tier journal? I’d like to have a better understanding of what is truly exciting in the most scholarly circles of Catholic Theology. (Anyone else is welcome to answer this- I’m here to learn as much as anything else).

Actually Hahn is a regular contributor to “Catholic Biblical Quarterly” awell respected Biblical study/theology journal.I know because i’ve read his articles.

 

[mtr01]

Exactly right. I have yet to see any verification anywhere of one of his theological speculations which, when properly understood, would lead people away from authentic Church teaching.

His ideas can be scrutinized. They may be right. They may be wrong. But even if they are wrong, none of them are leading anyone into sin or further away from the Church.

I think the point is that Hahn has become somewhat of a “pop” writer on Catholicism. As a result, a great deal of people who read his works are not theologians, but rather the “Average Joe (pun intended )” Catholic who may not be very theologically sophisticated. I can see how Hahn’s theories about what happened in the Garden of Eden could potentially lead someone into a faulty view of original sin. While probably not affecting one’s eternal salvation per se (especially if that person adheres to the authority of Holy Mother Church, it’s not hard to see how one error can lead to others, and so on. Therefore, I think there is a valid critique to be made on that basis.

IMHO, Hahn could do much better to dispel such issues by making it crystal clear that what is writing about is speculation, and direct the reader to test such speculations against Scripture and Tradition. Given his popularity, I suggest he has a greater responsibility to do so.

I suspect that if he emphasised more strongly that his speculations were just that, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation.

 

[AnyoneAnybody]

Julia,

The claim was made on this blog that he did not publish in top tier journals, so I asked what journals in his area are top tier?
I also asked what journals does he publish in? Simple questions, but no one answered… until now.

Thank you. I will look up the impact factor for this journal using Web of Science. I’ll be back in touch.

Actually Hahn is a regular contributor to “Catholic Biblical Quarterly” awell respected Biblical study/theology journal.I know because i’ve read his articles.

 

[AnyoneAnybody]

Now this is a well stated and rather objective assessment. Perhaps Dr. Hahn needs to be yet clearer when he is theologically speculating. He does identify when he is speculating but perhaps not clearly enough so everyone catches it (as evidenced by some comments here).

It should also be pointed out that even if his theological speculation goes under the radar of some less educated folks, it will do no harm. It does not conflict with Church doctrine.

I think the point is that Hahn has become somewhat of a “pop” writer on Catholicism. As a result, a great deal of people who read his works are not theologians, but rather the “Average Joe (pun intended )” Catholic who may not be very theologically sophisticated. I can see how Hahn’s theories about what happened in the Garden of Eden could potentially lead someone into a faulty view of original sin. While probably not affecting one’s eternal salvation per se (especially if that person adheres to the authority of Holy Mother Church, it’s not hard to see how one error can lead to others, and so on. Therefore, I think there is a valid critique to be made on that basis.

IMHO, Hahn could do much better to dispel such issues by making it crystal clear that what is writing about is speculation, and direct the reader to test such speculations against Scripture and Tradition. Given his popularity, I suggest he has a greater responsibility to do so.

I suspect that if he emphasised more strongly that his speculations were just that, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation.

 

[Cinette]

I think the point is that Hahn has become somewhat of a “pop” writer on Catholicism. As a result, a great deal of people who read his works are not theologians, but rather the “Average Joe (pun intended )” Catholic who may not be very theologically sophisticated. I can see how Hahn’s theories about what happened in the Garden of Eden could potentially lead someone into a faulty view of original sin. While probably not affecting one’s eternal salvation per se (especially if that person adheres to the authority of Holy Mother Church, it’s not hard to see how one error can lead to others, and so on. Therefore, I think there is a valid critique to be made on that basis.

IMHO, Hahn could do much better to dispel such issues by making it crystal clear that what is writing about is speculation, and direct the reader to test such speculations against Scripture and Tradition. Given his popularity, I suggest he has a greater responsibility to do so.

I suspect that if he emphasised more strongly that his speculations were just that, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation.

I have noticed that on many of the Journey Home interviews with ex-Ministers of Protestant religions who convert to Catholicism many speak of Hahn’s influence. These people can hardly be described as amateurs. They have studied theology. They are people who have struggled and agonised with the huge step they are about to take, that of converting to the Catholic Church.

No, I am no theologian but I repeat, if the Magisterium of the CC has not censured Hahn then I am satisfied that he is not making any serious theological errors.

We shall see how this unfolds

:ehh:

 

[Joe_5859]

Julia,

The claim was made on this blog that he did not publish in top tier journals, so I asked what journals in his area are top tier?
I also asked what journals does he publish in? Simple questions, but no one answered… until now.

Thank you. I will look up the impact factor for this journal using Web of Science. I’ll be back in touch.

Hey! Back in post #187 I gave a link to a collection of Dr. Hahn’s academic articles. It gives the citation for each article.

Besides his own Letter & Spirit Journal, he has also published in the Journal of Biblical Literature, Currents in Biblical Research, Catholic Biblical Quarterly, and Origins (not to mention several books that are collections of scholarly essays).

 

[Joe_5859]

I think the point is that Hahn has become somewhat of a “pop” writer on Catholicism. As a result, a great deal of people who read his works are not theologians, but rather the “Average Joe (pun intended )” Catholic who may not be very theologically sophisticated. I can see how Hahn’s theories about what happened in the Garden of Eden could potentially lead someone into a faulty view of original sin. While probably not affecting one’s eternal salvation per se (especially if that person adheres to the authority of Holy Mother Church, it’s not hard to see how one error can lead to others, and so on. Therefore, I think there is a valid critique to be made on that basis.

IMHO, Hahn could do much better to dispel such issues by making it crystal clear that what is writing about is speculation, and direct the reader to test such speculations against Scripture and Tradition. Given his popularity, I suggest he has a greater responsibility to do so.

I suspect that if he emphasised more strongly that his speculations were just that, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation.

I see what you’re saying. There’s no problem with desiring clarity on the issue. However, I do not think anyone who reads Hahn’s books in context will come away with a faulty view of Original Sin. I have encountered people who already know the Church’s teaching on Original Sin who are wary of Hahn’s thoughts. But I have yet to encounter anyone who did not know the Church’s teaching on Original Sin who came away from his books convinced of some heretical view.