Scott Hahn

[Tanner9188]

Thought was interesting about a Catholic Apologist who refuses to debate one of the best Christian Apologist. The question is why?

**Dr. Scott Hahn’s challenge to debate was delivered personally by James White following a debate in San Diego in January of 1991. James White had first met Scott Hahn at a debate between White and Gerry Matatics in Phoenix, Arizona. Hahn then moderated a debate on the Papacy the next evening. The next month White debated Dr. Mitchell Pacwa on justification and the Mass. Following one of these debates, White challenged Hahn, in front of a number of witnesses, to a public debate. That was in January of 1991—over six years ago now. So far, Hahn has been unwilling to debate.

In late 1996, James White received an invitation to participate in a Roman Catholic/Protestant dialogue/debate in Dallas, Texas, scheduled for April of 1997. White gladly accepted the invitation, and sent out a number of books and debate tapes to those who invited him. However, the very next day, White received a phone call, dis-inviting him. He was told that when Dr. Hahn was told he (White) had been invited, he became quite upset, and indicated that if White was going to attend, he would not. Since they already had a contract with Hahn, White’s invitation was rescinded.

For those, then, who would like to see how individuals such as Mark Shea, Karl Keating, and Scott Hahn, would respond to the challenges put forward by James White, we can only suggest one thing: contact these men and ask them to engage in such a public exchange.

The source: vintage.aomin.org/Aboutdebates.html **

 

[Peter_J]

Catholics and Protestants ARE NOT THE SAME.

Is there someone who’s been saying that Catholics and Protestants ARE the same? If so, please let me know who, because I would like to set him or her straight.

Obviously. Catholics were the first Christians. Protestants hadn’t come around until the 15th century. They are DIFFERENT than Catholics. They DO NOT hold the truth but a half truth. Jesus DID NOT establish anything Protestant. Jesus WOULD NEVER go by what Protestants take as His Word interpreted according to THEM. Although they believe in Christ, THAT IS NOT ENOUGH to save them.
Therefore they are a DIFFERENT religion.

I’m not sure why you started that sentence with the word “therefore”, seeing as you have not yet presented an argument for your claim that Catholicism and Protestantism are two different religions.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

Is there someone who’s been saying that Catholics and Protestants ARE the same? If so, please let me know who, because I would like to set him or her straight.

I’m not sure why you started that sentence with the word “therefore”, seeing as you have not yet presented an argument for your claim that Catholicism and Protestantism are two different religions.

Then Peter, what would you call the two? And sorry if you have to critique how I start sentences. Are you an English teacher?

 

[Peter_J]

In late 1996, James White received an invitation to participate in a Roman Catholic/Protestant dialogue/debate in Dallas, Texas, scheduled for April of 1997. White gladly accepted the invitation, and sent out a number of books and debate tapes to those who invited him. However, the very next day, White received a phone call, dis-inviting him. He was told that when Dr. Hahn was told he (White) had been invited, he became quite upset, and indicated that if White was going to attend, he would not. Since they already had a contract with Hahn, White’s invitation was rescinded.

That is very interesting; but the question might be asked, does it say more about Scott Hahn, or about James White?

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

Catholics and Protestants ARE NOT THE SAME. Obviously. Catholics were the first Christians. Protestants hadn’t come around until the 15th century. They are DIFFERENT than Catholics. They DO NOT hold the truth but a half truth. Jesus DID NOT establish anything Protestant. Jesus WOULD NEVER go by what Protestants take as His Word interpreted according to THEM. Although they believe in Christ, THAT IS NOT ENOUGH to save them.
Therefore they are a DIFFERENT religion.

It is difficult to speak for Jesus unless one has been sent by Him. Protestant and Catholic religion is the same, the theology is different. Scott Hahn converted to Catholicism because he rejected Protestant theology and accepted Catholic theology, the fullness of the faith which is to say the truth. “Where two or more are gathered in My Name, there am I in the midst of them” is opposed to “He who hears you, hears Me” in that if one chooses not to hear the apostles teaching and in fact rejects or “protests” against it, then how can those who reject Him be gathered in His Name? There are levels of separation and rejection so it can’t be objectively known where protesters reject Jesus’ messengers in their hearts. A through study of Catholicism, like Scott Hahn did, and a humble assent to the truth that is revealed is required before one rejects the 2000 year old Church Jesus founded. This is what is said by many converts on how they have come to the Catholic Church from multitudes of separate denominations not only opposed to the Catholic Church, but to one another. “That they may be one, as the Father and I are one”.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

It is difficult to speak for Jesus unless one has been sent by Him. Protestant and Catholic religion is the same, the theology is different. Scott Hahn converted to Catholicism because he rejected Protestant theology and accepted Catholic theology, the fullness of the faith which is to say the truth. “Where two or more are gathered in My Name, there am I in the midst of them” is opposed to “He who hears you, hears Me” in that if one chooses not to hear the apostles teaching and in fact rejects or “protests” against it, then how can those who reject Him be gathered in His Name? There are levels of separation and rejection so it can’t be objectively known where protesters reject Jesus’ messengers in their hearts. A through study of Catholicism, like Scott Hahn did, and a humble assent to the truth that is revealed is required before one rejects the 2000 year old Church Jesus founded. This is what is said by many converts on how they have come to the Catholic Church from multitudes of separate denominations not only opposed to the Catholic Church, but to one another. “That they may be one, as the Father and I are one”.

Ok, this makes sense somewhat, but if they were the same, they would revere the Blessed Mother and acknowledge the Eucharist, among other things. How can they be the same religion as Catholics? I still don’t get it. We all believe in Christ, but so don’t the Jehovah’s Witness, and the LDS, and the Quakers. Yet that is all called the same? JW’s and others are not Christians to me.

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

Ok, this makes sense somewhat, but if they were the same, they would revere the Blessed Mother and acknowledge the Eucharist, among other things. How can they be the same religion as Catholics? I still don’t get it. We all believe in Christ, but so don’t the Jehovah’s Witness, and the LDS, and the Quakers. Yet that is all called the same? JW’s and others are not Christians to me.

They have the Bible, canonized in the 400’s, which is the word of God, they have two sacraments (Baptism makes one part of the Family of God), they have the Holy Spirit (no one can say Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit), and we pray for them. It is the same religion, just not comparable to each other in some of the theology, Remember, there are Catholics who don’t revere the BVM or acknowledge the Eucharist, it is all a journey until we get to the end. Not all Catholics are the same and not all protestants are the same. Only God knows what will or won’t get us into heaven.

 

[ConflictedBoy]

What do you think of Scott Hahn? I think that Catholics have adopted him as a kind of proof that Catholicism is the true church.

But what do members of his former denomination think? (I’m not sure what that denomination is.) Do you think that he was right to join the CC if that is what God wanted him to do? Do you think that he was wrong to join the CC, because the CC is not where the truth about Jesus is taught?

I ask, because I found a book that I think was signed by him. The book is 'Understanding Scriptures, A Complete Course on Bible Study". Are people viewing him as a Catholic celebrity?

Have you read this book?

Members of his former denomination, have you read any of Hahn’s books to see why he came to the CC? If you have, what do you think?

I think most Catholics think that those who leave the CC, leave because more because they’re disgruntled over something that happened to them while being a Catholic than because of something another Christian church, religion, or agnosticism/atheism has to offer. Do you feel the same way about Hahn? Do you think that he ran from something more than he ran to something?

AA HA! Now this constitutes something in which I am compelled to supply with a clear cut response…telling my experience with the basics of Hahn’s work. Most peolpe who have converted to Roman Catholicism or intend to make such a convertion, are familiar with Hahn’s “Rome Sweet Home”, co - written with his wife, Kimberly.

An eye-opening book for anyone taking their first step towards the FULL Christian faith (Catholicism). In this book you will read about the spiritual, theological, and vocational issues (the latter will become clear to you when scott makes “the big decision”) that not only applied to THEM in their journey to God’s true church, but issues that often are addressed in such a way that the reader will often finish a section sounding something like “Wow! Why didnt I realise that before?”

It is not a long book but the Hahns are generally noting of this in the introduction. I in fact finished reading it only a month after ordering it, would have been much quicker had I not finals in school to finish all the while having a vicious case of the flu =( But God’s good graces got me through all that.

Now…to the question of why Hahn decided to “…Leave Whittenberg for Rome” as some say… I will simplify my answer so as not to give too much of the book’s content away. Scott, despite a zealous anti-Catholic for much of his early life, was well aware of certain aspects in scripture that at times seemed conflicted with protestant theology. When Scott became the pastor of a Presbyterian church, his practice of having communion every Sunday (unusual in Presbyterian circles*)(from the book). This subsequently led him to question certain doctrines that had historically defined protestantism. Scott had already, by the study of the Epistle of James, ruled out Sola fide. (Justification by faith alone). But it was when Scott could find no scriptural support for Sola Scriptura (i.e. the Bible alone is the final authority over Christians), and yet DID find support for the Catholic position of authority coming both from the Sacred Scriptures AND the authorities and traditions coming from the Church. (Please refer to I Timothy 3:15 for a quick reference)
It was from that point on that Scott Hahn, now one of our greatest contemporary Catholic apologists, came to realise that Protestantism was a self-serving form of religion (and that is not to say that Protestants are not really Christians, but thats a different discussion…)

The rest is a complicated, even troubled road Hahn take in his seeking the fullness of the faith.

As for Sott desiring to become Catholic out of dissociation with Protestants? Reading this I find it highly doubtful. Not one bitter or resentful word against his former churches had ever been made, the only thing that came cloest was a reference to himself leaving a church because the minister had publically doubted the reality of the Virgin Birth… what faithful Christian, Catholic or otherwise would want to stay at a church that cant affirm the most basic of doctrine?? But all the same, it is only a love and longing to be in communion with the church Jesus Christ founded that seems to movivate Scott in his conversion.

To anyone who is considering becoming Catholic but finds themselves in need of answers to likely questions. I would strongly suggest starting with this book, and afterward taking a look at “What Catholics Really Believe: Setting the record straight” by Karl Keating. This is Catholicism 101 material here, but well worth the read, especially if it puts you closer to where the Lord wants you to be.

Cheers =)**

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

Why don’t the Scott Hahn "haters’ here just get his CD, and LISTEN to his conversion?, oh, but that’s wayyyyyyy to easy…

 

[Techno2000]

AA HA! Now this constitutes something in which I am compelled to supply with a clear cut response…telling my experience with the basics of Hahn’s work. Most peolpe who have converted to Roman Catholicism or intend to make such a convertion, are familiar with Hahn’s “Rome Sweet Home”, co - written with his wife, Kimberly.

An eye-opening book for anyone taking their first step towards the FULL Christian faith (Catholicism). In this book you will read about the spiritual, theological, and vocational issues (the latter will become clear to you when scott makes “the big decision”) that not only applied to THEM in their journey to God’s true church, but issues that often are addressed in such a way that the reader will often finish a section sounding something like “Wow! Why didnt I realise that before?”

It is not a long book but the Hahns are generally noting of this in the introduction. I in fact finished reading it only a month after ordering it, would have been much quicker had I not finals in school to finish all the while having a vicious case of the flu =( But God’s good graces got me through all that.

Now…to the question of why Hahn decided to “…Leave Whittenberg for Rome” as some say… I will simplify my answer so as not to give too much of the book’s content away. Scott, despite a zealous anti-Catholic for much of his early life, was well aware of certain aspects in scripture that at times seemed conflicted with protestant theology. When Scott became the pastor of a Presbyterian church, his practice of having communion every Sunday (unusual in Presbyterian circles*)(from the book). This subsequently led him to question certain doctrines that had historically defined protestantism. Scott had already, by the study of the Epistle of James, ruled out Sola fide. (Justification by faith alone). But it was when Scott could find no scriptural support for Sola Scriptura (i.e. the Bible alone is the final authority over Christians), and yet DID find support for the Catholic position of authority coming both from the Sacred Scriptures AND the authorities and traditions coming from the Church. (Please refer to I Timothy 3:15 for a quick reference)
It was from that point on that Scott Hahn, now one of our greatest contemporary Catholic apologists, came to realise that Protestantism was a self-serving form of religion (and that is not to say that Protestants are not really Christians, but thats a different discussion…)

The rest is a complicated, even troubled road Hahn take in his seeking the fullness of the faith.

As for Sott desiring to become Catholic out of dissociation with Protestants? Reading this I find it highly doubtful. Not one bitter or resentful word against his former churches had ever been made, the only thing that came cloest was a reference to himself leaving a church because the minister had publically doubted the reality of the Virgin Birth… what faithful Christian, Catholic or otherwise would want to stay at a church that cant affirm the most basic of doctrine?? But all the same, it is only a love and longing to be in communion with the church Jesus Christ founded that seems to movivate Scott in his conversion.

To anyone who is considering becoming Catholic but finds themselves in need of answers to likely questions. I would strongly suggest starting with this book, and afterward taking a look at “What Catholics Really Believe: Setting the record straight” by Karl Keating. This is Catholicism 101 material here, but well worth the read, especially if it puts you closer to where the Lord wants you to be.

Cheers =)**These Books are good too.

angelfire.com/ca3/rafaelmarie/ThePieta/athepieta.html
catholicfreeshipping.com/Products/cfs_gensym-154.html
catholicforum.com/churches/cathteach/divinemercy1.htm
our.homewithgod.com/divinemercy/

 

[kalt]

That is very interesting; but the question might be asked, does it say more about Scott Hahn, or about James White?

I thought the same thing. You never know why 2 people avoid each other.

At work, there were 2 women who didn’t get along. I thought that they had “bad blood” from something that happened before I got there. The more popular woman had most people disliking the other. I didn’t like the other, just because. But I also didn’t like the more popular one. As I discovered, the other did nothing to the more popular. The more popular one just liked to pick an enemy, and once chose, there was no going back. It would be a life-long vendetta. She’s a miserable person who has been married and divorced twice, and at any given time at least 1 of her kids isn’t speaking to her. But until you’ve known her for a long time, you would think that she’s pleasant, and that those she’s talking about are abnormal.

So, the White vs Hahn, if there even is such a battle, may well be something other than how it is presented here. Most likely it is.

Also, scientists don’t debate ID (creationists in shee’s clothing), because ID is not a legitimate science. But you won’t see the refusal to debate presented truthfully like that on an ID site. They’ll present it as if the scientists are too afraid to debate.

Hahn vs White. I have no idea if the story told here is true–if it ever happen or if it happened that way. So what’s the use of picking a side?

 

[kalt]

AA HA! Now this constitutes something in which I am compelled to supply with a clear cut response…telling my experience with the basics of Hahn’s work. Most peolpe who have converted to Roman Catholicism or intend to make such a convertion, are familiar with Hahn’s “Rome Sweet Home”, co - written with his wife, Kimberly.

An eye-opening book for anyone taking their first step towards the FULL Christian faith (Catholicism). In this book you will read about the spiritual, theological, and vocational issues (the latter will become clear to you when scott makes “the big decision”) that not only applied to THEM in their journey to God’s true church, but issues that often are addressed in such a way that the reader will often finish a section sounding something like “Wow! Why didnt I realise that before?”

It is not a long book but the Hahns are generally noting of this in the introduction. I in fact finished reading it only a month after ordering it, would have been much quicker had I not finals in school to finish all the while having a vicious case of the flu =( But God’s good graces got me through all that.

Now…to the question of why Hahn decided to “…Leave Whittenberg for Rome” as some say… I will simplify my answer so as not to give too much of the book’s content away. Scott, despite a zealous anti-Catholic for much of his early life, was well aware of certain aspects in scripture that at times seemed conflicted with protestant theology. When Scott became the pastor of a Presbyterian church, his practice of having communion every Sunday (unusual in Presbyterian circles*)(from the book). This subsequently led him to question certain doctrines that had historically defined protestantism. Scott had already, by the study of the Epistle of James, ruled out Sola fide. (Justification by faith alone). But it was when Scott could find no scriptural support for Sola Scriptura (i.e. the Bible alone is the final authority over Christians), and yet DID find support for the Catholic position of authority coming both from the Sacred Scriptures AND the authorities and traditions coming from the Church. (Please refer to I Timothy 3:15 for a quick reference)
It was from that point on that Scott Hahn, now one of our greatest contemporary Catholic apologists, came to realise that Protestantism was a self-serving form of religion (and that is not to say that Protestants are not really Christians, but thats a different discussion…)

The rest is a complicated, even troubled road Hahn take in his seeking the fullness of the faith.

As for Sott desiring to become Catholic out of dissociation with Protestants? Reading this I find it highly doubtful. Not one bitter or resentful word against his former churches had ever been made, the only thing that came cloest was a reference to himself leaving a church because the minister had publically doubted the reality of the Virgin Birth… what faithful Christian, Catholic or otherwise would want to stay at a church that cant affirm the most basic of doctrine?? But all the same, it is only a love and longing to be in communion with the church Jesus Christ founded that seems to movivate Scott in his conversion.

To anyone who is considering becoming Catholic but finds themselves in need of answers to likely questions. I would strongly suggest starting with this book, and afterward taking a look at “What Catholics Really Believe: Setting the record straight” by Karl Keating. This is Catholicism 101 material here, but well worth the read, especially if it puts you closer to where the Lord wants you to be.

Cheers =)**

I’ve read Rome Sweet Home. I think you’re the 2nd or 3rd person here who has suggested that I read it (or maybe your suggestion wasn’t directed to me).

 

[Musician]

Scott Hahn is an amazing theologian. We went to hear him speak at a conference…the hours winged by like minutes; he is a mesmerizing speaker, filled with love for the Church and with a disciple’s zeal for making new converts. His books have helped me with Catholic doctrines tremendously. We have nearly every one of his books.
Dr. Hahn is truly one of the reasons we converted. Now that we are Catholic, we have delved much deeper in our faith and are reading the ancient Fathers and Doctors of the Church, truly a rewarding experience!

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

Scott Hahn is an amazing theologian. We went to hear him speak at a conference…the hours winged by like minutes; he is a mesmerizing speaker, filled with love for the Church and with a disciple’s zeal for making new converts. His books have helped me with Catholic doctrines tremendously. We have nearly every one of his books.
Dr. Hahn is truly one of the reasons we converted. Now that we are Catholic, we have delved much deeper in our faith and are reading the ancient Fathers and Doctors of the Church, truly a rewarding experience!

Hi I am very happy for your conversion! I am very happy you now have the whole truth in Christ’s church! :extrahappy: Reading the Early Church Fathers will certainly help you with in your journey.

 

[Peter_J]

Tanner9188, Kalt, et al,

I thought the same thing. You never know why 2 people avoid each other.

Very true.

It’s unfortunate that we don’t know Dr. Hahn side of it. I went looking, as a matter of fact, but wasn’t able to find any statement from him. (I did find something that was posted by one Dave Armstrong, which I’ll quote below.) But anyhow, in the absence of a statement from Hahn, I think it’s best to just give both him and White the proverbial benefit of the doubt.

From beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2007/03/augustine-on-matthew-1618.html?showComment=1173464520000#c6094682400726108576 :

Dave Armstrong said…

Scott Hahn has no “reputation” with White, who implies that he is a coward (just as with anyone else who turns down his blessed debates) :

"Dr. Scott Hahn’s challenge to debate was delivered personally by James White following a debate in San Diego in January of 1991. James White had first met Scott Hahn at a debate between White and Gerry Matatics in Phoenix, Arizona. Hahn then moderated a debate on the Papacy the next evening. The next month White debated Dr. Mitchell Pacwa on justification and the Mass. Following one of these debates, White challenged Hahn, in front of a number of witnesses, to a public debate. That was in January of 1991—over six years ago now. So far, Hahn has been unwilling to debate.

“In late 1996, James White received an invitation to participate in a Roman Catholic/Protestant dialogue/debate in Dallas, Texas, scheduled for April of 1997. White gladly accepted the invitation, and sent out a number of books and debate tapes to those who invited him. However, the very next day, White received a phone call, dis-inviting him. He was told that when Dr. Hahn was told he (White) had been invited, he became quite upset, and indicated that if White was going to attend, he would not. Since they already had a contract with Hahn, White’s invitation was rescinded.”

(“About Debating Certain Roman Catholic Apologists”)

aomin.org/Aboutdebates.html

White has even wondered aloud why Scott Hahn was stupid and ridiculous enough to write the Foreword to my book, More Biblical Evidence for Catholicism. How could anyone possibly recommend ME, after all?

Likewise, I have written a blurb for Scott’s new (not yet released) book, Reasons to Believe that can be seen on its amazon page. Scott loves my work. The attempt to make out that I am in some sub-class of apologetists simply because I have engaged virtually all of the leading anti-Catholic clowns (who then proceeded to trash my name) is absurd.

Of course they don’t like me much, because I dismantled their “arguments.” Human nature. When someone tucks and runs because they can’t defend their ludicrous beliefs under scrutiny, what choice do they have but to insult the person who exposed the fallacies and falsehoods in their “arguments”?

At least James Swan has the dignity to not say stupid things, as he decides whether he has the stuff to debate me in a live setting or not.

Why do you think I would give a rip about what anti-Catholics think of me? Like, I’m gonna be all disturbed because an anonymous character like you thinks I have a bad reputation? I couldn’t care any less than I do. This is completely to be expected.

All I care about is fulfilling my calling. With book sales thriving

[lessee; today three of my books are at #11, #14, and #82 on the amazon Top 100 for Catholic Theology:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/books/12455/ref=pd_ts_pg_1/002-8796686-4595235?ie=UTF8&pg=1

But of course it is bragging and arrogant for me to point out that my apostolate is rather successful, by all objective measures to determine such a thing]

. . . the blog doing well (almost 800 hits a day; James Swan gets 154, and the evangelical niche market is far larger than the orthodox Catholic apologetics crowd), and letters coming in all the time speaking of beneficial influence of my writing on spiritual lives and conversions to Catholicism, I’m exactly where I should be. Praise God that he is using this weak, sinful vessel in some small way for His purposes. All glory to God.

Being mocked and lied about by anti-Catholics is exactly what one would expect. It’s always been that way (ever since Luther began his propaganda campaign against the Catholic Church, complete with woodcuts of popes coming out of goats’ rear ends, cardinals being hanged, etc.) and always will be.

So mock and lie away. You’ll never stop what I am doing. In fact, the effect will be just the opposite. The more I am lied about, the more determined I am to write more apologetics.

So, from your perspective, your best course of action is to shut up and hope I write less, because the more I write, the more folks (most of them evangelical Protestants) tend to be influenced to become Catholics, and we mustn’t have that, must we?
1:22 PM, March 09, 2007

 

[O.S.Luke]

Then Peter, what would you call the two? And sorry if you have to critique how I start sentences. Are you an English teacher?

I think the problem is that you used a “therefore” which implies a logical argument and conclusion - and you didn’t present either. That’s not English grammar/syntax as much as it is foundational philosophy and apologetics. I think that was Peter’s point, though I am not trying to speak for him.

I don’t think anyone here claims that Catholics and Protestants are the same. The claim is that both are Christians, as the Catechism states: separated brethren, but brethren nonetheless, sharing a common baptism… which is why Catholics do not rebaptize converted Protestants who were baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

As far as Hahn - I’m certainly not a Hahn ‘hater’ - I think highly of him and Dave Armstrong, not always agreeing with them, but certainly don’t see either as dishonest or doing harm. Neither have publicly debated much, but I think it is more out of grace and a feeling that nothing would be gained. James White is, in my opinion, a bit irrational and somewhat mean-spirited (my opinion only). I wouldn’t expect to gain anything from a debate with him either, except a whizzing match - which profits nothing.

O+

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

I think the problem is that you used a “therefore” which implies a logical argument and conclusion - and you didn’t present either. That’s not English grammar/syntax as much as it is foundational philosophy and apologetics. I think that was Peter’s point, though I am not trying to speak for him.

I don’t think anyone here claims that Catholics and Protestants are the same. The claim is that both are Christians, as the Catechism states: separated brethren, but brethren nonetheless, sharing a common baptism… which is why Catholics do not rebaptize converted Protestants who were baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

As far as Hahn - I’m certainly not a Hahn ‘hater’ - I think highly of him and Dave Armstrong, not always agreeing with them, but certainly don’t see either as dishonest or doing harm. Neither have publicly debated much, but I think it is more out of grace and a feeling that nothing would be gained. James White is, in my opinion, a bit irrational and somewhat mean-spirited (my opinion only). I wouldn’t expect to gain anything from a debate with him either, except a whizzing match - which profits nothing.

O+

There you go…stalking me again…

 

[ConflictedBoy]

I’ve read Rome Sweet Home. I think you’re the 2nd or 3rd person here who has suggested that I read it (or maybe your suggestion wasn’t directed to me).

Actually it wasnt so much a suggestion as it was my own little quasi-review of the book, and my thoughts on Hahn himself. In retrospect that might have sounded presumtuous, sorry for that…

 

[laurenharper]

Thought was interesting about a Catholic Apologist who refuses to debate one of the best Christian Apologist. The question is why?

**Dr. Scott Hahn’s challenge to debate was delivered personally by James White following a debate in San Diego in January of 1991. James White had first met Scott Hahn at a debate between White and Gerry Matatics in Phoenix, Arizona. Hahn then moderated a debate on the Papacy the next evening. The next month White debated Dr. Mitchell Pacwa on justification and the Mass. Following one of these debates, White challenged Hahn, in front of a number of witnesses, to a public debate. That was in January of 1991—over six years ago now. So far, Hahn has been unwilling to debate.

In late 1996, James White received an invitation to participate in a Roman Catholic/Protestant dialogue/debate in Dallas, Texas, scheduled for April of 1997**. White gladly accepted the invitation, and sent out a number of books and debate tapes to those who invited him. However, the very next day, White received a phone call, dis-inviting him. He was told that when Dr. Hahn was told he (White) had been invited, he became quite upset, and indicated that if White was going to attend, he would not. Since they already had a contract with Hahn, White’s invitation was rescinded.

For those, then, who would like to see how individuals such as Mark Shea, Karl Keating, and Scott Hahn, would respond to the challenges put forward by James White, we can only suggest one thing: contact these men and ask them to engage in such a public exchange.

The source: vintage.aomin.org/Aboutdebates.html

Tanner9188 - I too read the story of Scott Hahn refusing to debate James White. On Scott Hahn’s website, however, he names a valid concern for why he did so. He states that in previous debates against other Catholics, James White employed poor debating tactics, such as using personal insults and speculative criticism to ‘devalidate’ his opponent. One example I remember reading (although there were many) was one opponent of White’s had to leave in the middle of the debate to use the restroom. White then made remark after remark saying that his opponent was scared by White’s strong debate points, and had to ‘run off’ to think of how to respond. The opponent finally found himself in a position to have to explain why he went to the bathroom - to relieve himself!! How ridiculous. Another opponent in another debate, when bringing up valid historical objections to White, was told, in essence, that he was inexperienced and under-educated (though he never countered his historical assertions). Because of all the below-the-belt, improper debating tactics, Hahn decided that White wasn’t the kind of guy who could engage in a fair debate, and so refused to take him on. There’s always two sides to every story. I tend to believe Hahn, because I’ve read so much of him and respect his mind and heart that I don’t think he would lie, or have any reason to fear an opponent to Catholicism.

 

[Peter_J]

Hi all,

Let me start with a quick note that my computer seems to be unable to load this website. (At the moment I’m using a different computer.) For that reason, I probably won’t be posting very frequently, until the problem resolves itself.

Thanks to laurenharper for finding Dr. Hahn’s response …

Tanner9188 - I too read the story of Scott Hahn refusing to debate James White. On Scott Hahn’s website, however, he names a valid concern for why he did so. He states that in previous debates against other Catholics, James White employed poor debating tactics, such as using personal insults and speculative criticism to ‘devalidate’ his opponent. One example I remember reading (although there were many) was one opponent of White’s had to leave in the middle of the debate to use the restroom. White then made remark after remark saying that his opponent was scared by White’s strong debate points, and had to ‘run off’ to think of how to respond. The opponent finally found himself in a position to have to explain why he went to the bathroom - to relieve himself!! How ridiculous. Another opponent in another debate, when bringing up valid historical objections to White, was told, in essence, that he was inexperienced and under-educated (though he never countered his historical assertions). Because of all the below-the-belt, improper debating tactics, Hahn decided that White wasn’t the kind of guy who could engage in a fair debate, and so refused to take him on. There’s always two sides to every story. I tend to believe Hahn, because I’ve read so much of him and respect his mind and heart that I don’t think he would lie, or have any reason to fear an opponent to Catholicism.

Sad. Ironically, I just yesterday read White’s Mirror mirror piece (which I found interesting, although a bit overly-long) which, in light of the above post and the one from O.S. Luke, seems to apply just as much (maybe more) to White as it does the people he criticized in the article. Truly sad.