Scott Hahn

[Tradycja]

What do you think of Scott Hahn??

Scott Hahn is awesome and his testimony “Protestant Minister Becomes Catholic” and “the 4th cup” changed my life.

 

[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.

It just occurred to me that the timing is rather interesting: I was just saying, on another recent thread, that I occasionally feel a twinge of guilt concerning the fact that I often enter into conversations about Protestants and Eastern Orthodox, on a sub-forum which is supposed to be about other religions, and questioning whether I ought to stop doing that. Makes you wonder … is it possible that my computer’s inability to load this website is actually God’s way of answering my question?

 

[Hesychios]

I would quote my profile for you, but I see it has already been done:

P.S. If you’re offended by the fact that I said my religion is Christianity, then we can talk about that too. The long and short of it is that I consider Christianity to be ONE religion (not meaning any offense to Evangelicals and Fundamentalists who say that Catholicism and Protestantism are two different religions). %between%

Exactly!

We are all Christians. There is a constant yammering that Catholics are not Christians and some types of Protestants are fond of contrasting Catholicism with Christianity (as if that were possible).

As a Catholic I often identified myself as “Christian”.

More than once someone said to me “Oh, I thought you were Catholic”. I always responded “but I am”.

Nothing has changed

 

[Peter_J]

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.

Stratch that; the problem seems to have been resolved a lot sooner than I expected.

 

[rtconstant]

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.

Hahn is correct. To be honest it is any insult to apologetics that anyone “debates” with White. If there was technology to mute the voice of debater whenever they spoke about unrelated subjects, insults or issued sound bites I don’t think he’d have much to say.

Anyway, public debates are a waste of time. By their nature they have time limits which means that speakers must focus less on making solid points and focus more on entertaining the crowd. Subjects like religion and philosophy or really any subject worth debating in the first place don’t need time constraints. To me the only debating forums worth paying attention to are either printed or electronic. Written debate is key as both parties may be allowed to speak at length to their point, they may take the time to consider their responses and recheck their sources, so that they may respond with as much accuracy as possible. Also, the reader may take their time and analyze what is said, instead of losing themselves in an emotional moment.

I doubt White would ever concede to this style of debate. As vitriol while exciting to most in person, typically only looks juvenile in print.

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

As vitriol while exciting to most in person, typically only looks juvenile in print.

This should be blazoned across the top of this forum!

 

[laurenharper]

To me the only debating forums worth paying attention to are either printed or electronic. Written debate is key as both parties may be allowed to speak at length to their point, they may take the time to consider their responses and recheck their sources, so that they may respond with as much accuracy as possible. Also, the reader may take their time and analyze what is said, instead of losing themselves in an emotional moment.
QUOTE]

Excellent point. I have read about as many debates as I’ve listed to, and the written ones always leave me with more objective information. Anyway, Hahn was right to not be willing to debate just anyone. If one of the debators cares more about being right than finding truth, than it is a useless debate.

 

[laurenharper]

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.

Wow. Seems like Mr. White needs to take a peek in the mirror himself! I will note that, to be fair, I have known both Catholics and Protestants to employ poor debate tactics (speaking specifically of many forums here on CA) that end up insulting the other side more than making a valid point. It’s no wonder so many non-Christians want nothing to do with us, when they see us all bickering over ‘who’s right’! I love seeing (or hearing) a good, proper, polite, point-by-point debate, but it seems there are becoming fewer and fewer of these nowadays.

 

[pattynicole]

I must really be missing something in these posts. I do not get to view them as often as I would like and I am a very infrequent contributor.

My troubling question has nothing to do with Mr. Hahn however. Why does O.S. Luke dislike OneTrueCathApos so much? The attacks seem so personal. Do you two know each other from somewhere else?

Let us now offer each other the sign of peace.

 

[Peter_J]

Wow. Seems like Mr. White needs to take a peek in the mirror himself! I will note that, to be fair, I have known both Catholics and Protestants to employ poor debate tactics (speaking specifically of many forums here on CA) that end up insulting the other side more than making a valid point.

I think you are completely right.

BTW, I read another article (a lot shorted, I’m happy to say, than the “Mirror Mirror” article ) about his debate with Tim Staples. Once again, of course, it’s tough to say who’s in the right (or more in the right?), but at any rate it shows that Hahn isn’t the only RC apologist who’s had ‘bad blood’ with White. (I wish I could find the explanation from Hahn that you referred to earlier. It’s apparently no longer on his website.)

 

[Peter_J]

BTW, I read another article (a lot shorted, I’m happy to say, than the “Mirror Mirror” article ) about his debate with Tim Staples.

Oops, I forgot to include the url for that article.

 

[Katrina5]

Don’t know Hahn. Haven’t read his book. Don’t know anything about the man.

I am going to say this, though: there seem to be three sorts of people who change religions:

those who leave and then look,
Those who look and then leave,
Those who find–and find that didn’t really have anything TO leave.

Of those who leave first and then look for a new faith, the reasons for leaving are almost always personal, not theological: someone has hurt their feelings, or treated them badly; they have physically moved and the new place doesn’t have the right ‘feel’; they have done something so against the rules of their faith that they were either kicked out or feel so guilty (and resentful, perhaps) that they kick themselves out. When they find another faith to join, these folks tend to be bitter and attack their former faith; blaming it for something it was not responsible for.

Of those who ‘look then leave,’ we have people who, while they are active members of their first faith, look around at other faiths to learn more, or someone convinces them that their first faith isn’t what they always thought it was; there is this new faith that offers more, IS more, of what they need. These folks are far less likely to go all Ed Decker (OK, “Jack Chick” ) on their first faith, but some do.

Then there are those who simply live their lives–and get blindsided by something in a new faith that they didn’t even know they were missing. When they go forward, they do so because they didn’t have much of anything invested in their first faith (if they HAD a ‘first faith’) other than social networking, culture, or family tradition. THESE folks very seldom go after their first faith; they are too busy learning about this new one, that is filling a void they didn’t even know was there.

I don’t know which of these categories Kahn falls in, but if his books are all about his new found Catholic faith rather than condemnations of his former faith, it’s a safe bet that he is either a "look then leave,’ or a “those who find” sort of person. That would make him someone who is ‘running to,’ not ‘running from.’

I know, long winded answer to a short question…I do that.

He really never seems to condemn his former church. I think he’s a genius, and as for his education being from a protestant seminary, I see no fault there. He has progressed and studied, and become the most wonderful apologist we could hope for.
He is a true theologian.
His books explain theology in ways that are inspired.
His journey was NOT easy, either.

 

[tony_forte]

Scott Hahn is one of many who converted to the historic church.Carl Olson and David Currie are some favorites.I am reading Scott Hahn’s reason to believe,and it provides excellent testimony and he defends the catholic faith.Hats off to Scott Hahn and all others who join him.That person who said that the word “protestant” is derived from a Latin word to mean to, take a witness,should also realize that the Catholic church has witnessed Christ for 2000 years.God bless

 

[O.S.Luke]

Scott Hahn is one of many who converted to the historic church.Carl Olson and David Currie are some favorites.I am reading Scott Hahn’s reason to believe,and it provides excellent testimony and he defends the catholic faith.Hats off to Scott Hahn and all others who join him.That person who said that the word “protestant” is derived from a Latin word to mean to, take a witness,should also realize that the Catholic church has witnessed Christ for 2000 years.God bless

Protestant in the context of Luther was to stand as a witness against the abuses of the hierarchy and politics of Saxony. It certainly turned into more than that, which is certainly regrettable.

I never said that the Catholic Church wasn’t witnessing in the name of Christ.

 

[O.S.Luke]

Wow. Seems like Mr. White needs to take a peek in the mirror himself! I will note that, to be fair, I have known both Catholics and Protestants to employ poor debate tactics (speaking specifically of many forums here on CA) that end up insulting the other side more than making a valid point. It’s no wonder so many non-Christians want nothing to do with us, when they see us all bickering over ‘who’s right’! I love seeing (or hearing) a good, proper, polite, point-by-point debate, but it seems there are becoming fewer and fewer of these nowadays.

“Debate” is a poor way to convert or make disciples. And the practice of Christian apologetics is not to debate, but to gently correct and persuade. One of my reasons for posting here is because of all the inaccuracies and pigeonholing that takes place. I’m not trying to say that my faith is better than yours - but it is dishonest to speak untruths (realized or not) about another faith in order to make one superior over another.

When anyone brings up “debate” to the average American, the prevalent image is that of a political debate - and the last thing people who are at best nominal in their faith want in a Church or faith practice is another place to hear various sides of a debate. They want to know Christ, want to hear religious truth, and want to find sanctuary and a place that doesn’t conform to the world, bur rather conforms to the Kingdom of God.

 

[Dee123]

Don’t know Hahn. Haven’t read his book. Don’t know anything about the man.

I am going to say this, though: there seem to be three sorts of people who change religions:

those who leave and then look,
Those who look and then leave,
Those who find–and find that didn’t really have anything TO leave.

Of those who leave first and then look for a new faith, the reasons for leaving are almost always personal, not theological: someone has hurt their feelings, or treated them badly; they have physically moved and the new place doesn’t have the right ‘feel’; they have done something so against the rules of their faith that they were either kicked out or feel so guilty (and resentful, perhaps) that they kick themselves out. When they find another faith to join, these folks tend to be bitter and attack their former faith; blaming it for something it was not responsible for.

Of those who ‘look then leave,’ we have people who, while they are active members of their first faith, look around at other faiths to learn more, or someone convinces them that their first faith isn’t what they always thought it was; there is this new faith that offers more, IS more, of what they need. These folks are far less likely to go all Ed Decker (OK, “Jack Chick” ) on their first faith, but some do.

Then there are those who simply live their lives–and get blindsided by something in a new faith that they didn’t even know they were missing. When they go forward, they do so because they didn’t have much of anything invested in their first faith (if they HAD a ‘first faith’) other than social networking, culture, or family tradition. THESE folks very seldom go after their first faith; they are too busy learning about this new one, that is filling a void they didn’t even know was there.

I don’t know which of these categories Kahn falls in, but if his books are all about his new found Catholic faith rather than condemnations of his former faith, it’s a safe bet that he is either a "look then leave,’ or a “those who find” sort of person. That would make him someone who is ‘running to,’ not ‘running from.’

I know, long winded answer to a short question…I do that.

He actually doesn’t fall into any of these categories…you’re generalizing him and that’s NOT fair. Read any one of his books in its entirety before you comment. After you read one of his books in its entirety (or listen to his CD’s/DVDs), without bias, then you’re allowed to comment…

 

[O.S.Luke]

I must really be missing something in these posts. I do not get to view them as often as I would like and I am a very infrequent contributor.

My troubling question has nothing to do with Mr. Hahn however. Why does O.S. Luke dislike OneTrueCathApos so much? The attacks seem so personal. Do you two know each other from somewhere else?

Let us now offer each other the sign of peace.

I don’t dislike her at all. But I am often attacked and accused of being an anti-Catholic by her, which I am not. I have the utmost respect for Catholicism and the Catholic faith. I am all for peace.

 

[Carlan]

Don’t know Hahn. Haven’t read his book. Don’t know anything about the man.

I am going to say this, though: there seem to be three sorts of people who change religions:

those who leave and then look,
Those who look and then leave,
Those who find–and find that didn’t really have anything TO leave.

Of those who leave first and then look for a new faith, the reasons for leaving are almost always personal, not theological: someone has hurt their feelings, or treated them badly; they have physically moved and the new place doesn’t have the right ‘feel’; they have done something so against the rules of their faith that they were either kicked out or feel so guilty (and resentful, perhaps) that they kick themselves out. When they find another faith to join, these folks tend to be bitter and attack their former faith; blaming it for something it was not responsible for.

Of those who ‘look then leave,’ we have people who, while they are active members of their first faith, look around at other faiths to learn more, or someone convinces them that their first faith isn’t what they always thought it was; there is this new faith that offers more, IS more, of what they need. These folks are far less likely to go all Ed Decker (OK, “Jack Chick” ) on their first faith, but some do.

Then there are those who simply live their lives–and get blindsided by something in a new faith that they didn’t even know they were missing. When they go forward, they do so because they didn’t have much of anything invested in their first faith (if they HAD a ‘first faith’) other than social networking, culture, or family tradition. THESE folks very seldom go after their first faith; they are too busy learning about this new one, that is filling a void they didn’t even know was there.

I don’t know which of these categories Kahn falls in, but if his books are all about his new found Catholic faith rather than condemnations of his former faith, it’s a safe bet that he is either a "look then leave,’ or a “those who find” sort of person. That would make him someone who is ‘running to,’ not ‘running from.’

I know, long winded answer to a short question…I do that.

I simply believe most Catholics who leave the Chuch do so out of disobedience, some look for an easy denomination others just give up. Most will return on their death bed. An old Catholic saying still floating around is 'The Catholic Church is the hardest Church to live and the easiest to die in.

 

[O.S.Luke]

I simply believe most Catholics who leave the Chuch do so out of disobedience, some look for an easy denomination others just give up. Most will return on their death bed. An old Catholic saying still floating around is 'The Catholic Church is the hardest Church to live and the easiest to die in.

I suppose any church is as hard or easy to live in as you want. Done with integrity and faithfulness, I don’t know any denomination or church that is easy to live in. The Christian faith is hard, but a blessing.

 

[Hesychios]

I must really be missing something in these posts. I do not get to view them as often as I would like and I am a very infrequent contributor.

My troubling question has nothing to do with Mr. Hahn however. Why does O.S. Luke dislike OneTrueCathApos so much? The attacks seem so personal. Do you two know each other from somewhere else?

Let us now offer each other the sign of peace.

Personally I would not ask nor answer this question in a public thread.

I suggest that you use the PM system and discuss this with the parties involved privately.