Scott Hahn

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jim_Baur
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jim_Baur

Guest
I have studied Hahn carefully.

I have also worked in theology, philosophy, history and so forth for a long, long time.

Hahn has helped me greatly.

I will post another separate idea in the next post.

Thanks!
 
Hahn has helped me see that Covenant(s) is a most fundamental reality.

I see the Covenants as mutual covenants of love.

He points out that there are three parts to our love covenants.
  1. Oath
  2. Sacrifice
  3. Meal
The love covenants have three parts, an oath, a sacrifice and a meal.

I see the Love oath and the Ten Commandments or Ten Words as part of the oath.

In the New Covenant we renew that oath at Mass or in the Eucharist.

Thanks for listening.

I will surely that any helpful corrections or insights.

Again, thanks!
 
Apparently he has quite a personal collection of bible study material. It’s hard to tell which ideas are his own original ideas, or whether he is just passing on the insights of others.

There isn’t enough time in my life to figure that out. But, I have learned a lot from listening to him.

Yes, it’s surprising and somewhat disappointing that we can’t learn as much bible information from priests as we can from him. Priestly training involves a lot of cookie cutter thinking. Priests have to study a lot more to really stand out, inspirationally speaking, like Fr. George Ruttler.

Yes, again, the whole idea of covenant is understated in Catholic thinking and teaching. It’s nowhere covered as well as when he explains it.

He has given me many more biblical insights than just about “covenant.”

He’s doing fewer shows for EWTN, I think, because he’s working on the OT version of the Ignatius Study Bible. He has set a high standard for himself to continue his own tradition of “life changing” bible study.
 
He is explaining, rephrasing, and clearly teaching traditional Christian doctrines.

He does a lot of remedial teaching.

He is passing on the traditions of the Catholic Christian faith.
 
Crumpy said:
Apparently he has quite a personal collection of bible study material. It’s hard to tell which ideas are his own original ideas, or whether he is just passing on the insights of others.
Click to expand...
I think in several places in his books he mentions that the discoveries he’s talking about are personal discoveries, not entirely new ideas. So, I think most of the material in his books isn’t something he created, but something that he presented in a different way. Not that this diminishes his works because presentation and delivery is extremely important in books about faith.
There isn’t enough time in my life to figure that out. But, I have learned a lot from listening to him.
Click to expand...
I agree, I converted after reading “Reasons to Believe”. Hahn’s books are excellent.
Yes, it’s surprising and somewhat disappointing that we can’t learn as much bible information from priests as we can from him. Priestly training involves a lot of cookie cutter thinking. Priests have to study a lot more to really stand out, inspirationally speaking, like Fr. George Ruttler.
Click to expand...
There are many priests that could evangelize in this way but because of their priestly duties wouldn’t have time to. But you are right, there are also many that are lacking in apologetics.

OTOH, it’s pretty clear the Dr. Hahn is on an entirely different level of intelligence than most people. The guy is sharp as a tack and knows the bible and catechism like no other. He’s been a real blessing to me, no doubt.
 
I like watching Scott Hahn. He explains things in a really easy to understand way, which is really helpful to those of us who are trying to learn about the Catholic Church.
 
I think what makes Hahn’s insights so great is that he went through a process of building his faith and gradually understanding one article of faith after another. None of the articles of faith were anything new but his explanations of the path he took in coming to understand each of them is what is so eye opening. Its kind of like playing a game of connect the dots. We can all see the dots, but he goes through and shows how they all connect.
 
Jim_Baur said:
Hahn has helped me see that Covenant(s) is a most fundamental reality.

I see the Covenants as mutual covenants of love.

He points out that there are three parts to our love covenants.
  1. Oath
  2. Sacrifice
  3. Meal
The love covenants have three parts, an oath, a sacrifice and a meal.

I see the Love oath and the Ten Commandments or Ten Words as part of the oath.

In the New Covenant we renew that oath at Mass or in the Eucharist.

Thanks for listening.

I will surely that any helpful corrections or insights.

Again, thanks!
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t baptism be the oath part? I’ve seen Hahn on EWTN repeating Zwingli’s argument about the sacraments being like “soldiers’ oaths.” Which surprised but delighted me–I think it’s great that Hahn is bringing the positive aspects of Zwingli’s theology into Catholicism, without the reductionistic denial of the Real Presence which was Zwingli’s great heresy.

I too have found Hahn’s emphasis on covenant to be very helpful over the years. I don’t agree with everything he says by any means, but at the end of the day the basic reason I can’t get away from the pull toward “Rome” is that I think Jesus established His covenant with St. Peter, and I need to be in a covenant relationship with Peter’s successor in order to follow Jesus fully.

Edwin
 
Crumpy said:
It’s hard to tell which ideas are his own original ideas, or whether he is just passing on the insights of others.
Click to expand...
I too greatly enjoy the books by Scott Hahn and I like his academic honesty. He makes very clear in his book The Lamb’s Supper: The Mass as Heaven on Earth that the interpretations on Book of Revelations that he discussing are not his but rather are the interpretations of the Church Fathers.

Ran
 
It’s been a number of years since I’ve read anything by Scott Hahn. What I did read in the past, I enjoyed a great deal and learned a lot from.

Since that time, however, I’ve come across a number of disparaging and critical remarks about him, his books, and his methods of exposition. I don’t recall now what they were, but they weren’t nice at all–and they came mainly from Catholics. Any idea why someone would feel so negatively about him?

Thanks!

In Christ,
Jeff
 
Ranp said:
Protestants and many cafeteria Catholics don’t like the truth!

Ran
Click to expand...
This is true, but doesn’t really answer my question. I wish I could be more specific about the criticisms levied against him, that way it might be easier to address. Sorry. I’m thinking that maybe there was something about his depth or lack thereof. Or something about bringing “baggage” from his days as a Protestant. I never had any problem with him at all. But that’s me ;).
 
I have to try and share this. I will give it a try.

From reading Hahn and Ceslaus Spicq (speaks), OP, I have some thoughts that the Ten Commandments are rooted in the ground or land of love.

The Covenant part is in my opinion a Covenant of love. In Exodus 20, I believe that God and the Jews are making there oath. I will have One God. I take this Oath honestly and not falsely (second commandment). “We, God and the Jews, promise to love each other, and our neighbors.”

On the Oath Day or Sabbath Day we will renew this Love Covenant with God.

I believe that Jesus teaches along with St. Paul that the Ten Words/Commandments hinge or planted or rooted in love.

When we take the oath to love God, God’s love produces love, joy, peace patient endurance, kindness, faithfulness, meekness and chastity. To some extent I have seen this produce in my own life.

In conjunction with the Sower of the Seed and we are rooted in love, the ground is love. It would mean that the Promised Land is Love. It would mean that the literal meaning of the figure of speech in the Creation Account is that Adam and Eve were made out of God’s Love.

The different lands or grounds is love of the world, self or other governments.

Well, I said I would try. I do not know if I can articulate the documentation for this but that is were my spiritual life is.
 
Contarini said:
Wouldn’t baptism be the oath part? I’ve seen Hahn on EWTN repeating Zwingli’s argument about the sacraments being like “soldiers’ oaths.” Which surprised but delighted me–I think it’s great that Hahn is bringing the positive aspects of Zwingli’s theology into Catholicism, without the reductionistic denial of the Real Presence which was Zwingli’s great heresy.
Click to expand...
You probably know this, but in case others don’t, Hahn comes from a Calvinist influenced protestant background and got his degree from (IIRC) Gordon Conwell prior to converting. If there’s a scholar out there able to separate the wheat from the chaff in Calvinism, I’d bet it’s him.
 
MrPip said:
It’s been a number of years since I’ve read anything by Scott Hahn. What I did read in the past, I enjoyed a great deal and learned a lot from.

Since that time, however, I’ve come across a number of disparaging and critical remarks about him, his books, and his methods of exposition. I don’t recall now what they were, but they weren’t nice at all–and they came mainly from Catholics. Any idea why someone would feel so negatively about him?

Thanks!

In Christ,
Jeff
Click to expand...
Probably liberal Catholics who want it their way.
 
I would be struck speechless if I ever got to see his personal library.
I have much respect for him and his wife Kimberly, they went through a lot to become Catholics, and not at the same time either. I eagerly await Dr. Hahn’s Ignatius Study Bible: Old Testament.
 
Ranp said:
Protestants and many cafeteria Catholics don’t like the truth!

Ran
Click to expand...
I don’t think that’s fair. Scott Hahn’s teachings are not simply “the truth.” They are one fallible theologian’s interpretation.

I think Hahn has much of value to say, but I worry about the way some Catholics seem to have set him up as a kind of magisterium.

Edwin
 
Contarini said:
I don’t think that’s fair. Scott Hahn’s teachings are not simply “the truth.” They are one fallible theologian’s interpretation.

I think Hahn has much of value to say, but I worry about the way some Catholics seem to have set him up as a kind of magisterium.

Edwin
Click to expand...
I LOVE Hahn. I LOVE him. His arguments are great. I love reading his work. BUT if anything he says ever contradicts anything the Church has stated I know that the Church prevails, and I’m sure he accepts this as well.

People look for leaders. There’s nothing wrong with that. So long as we know who appointed that leader!!!
 
Contarini said:
I don’t think that’s fair. Scott Hahn’s teachings are not simply “the truth.” They are one fallible theologian’s interpretation.

I think Hahn has much of value to say, but I worry about the way some Catholics seem to have set him up as a kind of magisterium.

Edwin
Click to expand...
The problem is with that statement you are making two assumptions.
  1. That there can be more than one ‘truth’. Truth is not subjective. It’s either true or not.
  2. You’re making the assumption Scott Hahn is wrong because you don’t agree with him.
As a protestant converting to Catholicism, Scott Hahn has been one of the most influential teachers for me. I come from nearly the same background that he does (without as much education in theology.) To be able to see someone who struggled with the exact same problems I had with the Catholic church explain it in a way that not only satisfies my problems, but clarifies why they aren’t problems, just misunderstandings.

I’d suggest that if you really don’t agree with him, read all of his work. I haven’t read all of it, but I’ve found very little in it that a protestant would have a problem with, unless they just didn’t ‘want’ to agree.
 
Scott Hahns greatest asset (one of many) is the fact he was NOT Catholic, therefore could see the errors when he finally got the “light”…and refute like no other.

I love Scott Hahn, and quite frankly…I would not be surprised in the least if one day he is a Doctor of the Church…

Many a Doctor of the Church probably weren’t best appreciated until after their death.

So recognize in him what we see today, and believe this is as good as it gets.

The association with the Book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ and The Lambs Supper, should win him an Oscar.

What a brilliant mind. A Catholic…

Great post 👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top