Scott Hahn's Jouney To Catholicism

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

 

[TheCatholic]

.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

.

Is that morse code?

 

[TheCatholic]

No. I realized I had posted in the wrong thread.

 

[Athanasias]

Has anyone seen Dr. Hahn's awesome study bible series called the Ingatius Catholic study bibles?? I think they are the best study bibles!

If so what do you think of them as study tools?

Amazon.com: The Gospel of John: Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, Revised Standard Version (9780898708202): Scott Hahn, Curtis Mitch: Books

 

[boswd]

Is that morse code?

I don't know why there is not a delete function. It might come in handy when people post in the heat of the moment

 

[TheCatholic]

That would be nice

 

[Seeking Him]

i'm glad you mentioned Aquilina. I had a catholic friend in met in a different forum. He sent me three (3) books, 1 by Hahn, 1 by Karl Keating and 1 by Aquilina.

Hah, too syrupy and please don't be so harsh with the Protestants . . . they just don't understand, blah, blah, blah---yuck~ Keating, rude, obnoixious and beligerent-that is regarding Protestantism. However, Aquilina was very tolerable, scholarly and not the least bit insulting. I had no trouble digesting his book--even though I still disagree with much of Catholic doctrine.

It's hard to find good Protestant books. They can be sin centered or give you a formula for your problems. I do know of a great commentary series called "Twenty-First Century Biblical Commentary Series" It's not boring, and you learn alot of interesting thing. I've read their commentaries on the Gospels.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Originally Posted by PassthePeace1

Actually, it's pretty simple....


​

Good, then explain the following to me:



Please explain how one uses Scripture as the norma normans comes to a conclusion from that that Scripture must not be used as the norma normans? Does't his conclusion invalidate the very thing that lead him to that conclusion - thus indicating the conclusion likely false? And how does one regard the RCC as accountable so as to investigate it and doing thus conclude that the RCC is not accountable but rather infallible? Isn't the conclusion arrived at by something that is wrong, thus the conclusion is? And how can one assume the role of arbiter to determine the correctness of the RCC lead one to conclude that he is not an arbiter and thus his arbitration is wrong? One uses the very things one affirms as WRONG to conclude something is RIGHT. Either the conclusion is faulty OR the process is right and he/she cannot be Catholic. Either way, the conclusion is faulty.



.

 

[TheCatholic]

How does all that pertian to Scott Hahn's journey to Catholicism?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

How does all that pertian to Scott Hahn's journey to Catholicism?

Since I don't know HOW he came to his conclusions, I'm addressing the question generically. I'm wondering how ANYONE "converts to" Catholicism? Particularly, a Protestant:

Please explain how one uses Scripture as the norma normans comes to a conclusion from that that Scripture must not be used as the norma normans? Does't his conclusion invalidate the very thing that lead him to that conclusion - thus indicating the conclusion likely false? And how does one regard the RCC as accountable so as to investigate it and doing thus conclude that the RCC is not accountable but rather infallible? Isn't the conclusion arrived at by something that is wrong, thus the conclusion likely is wrong? And how can one assume the role of arbiter to determine the correctness of the RCC lead one to conclude that he is not an arbiter and thus his arbitration is wrong? One uses the very things one affirms as WRONG to conclude something is RIGHT. Either the conclusion is faulty OR the process is right and he/she cannot be Catholic. Either way, the conclusion is faulty at best.




.

 

[TheCatholic]

Since I don't know HOW he came to his conclusions, I'm addressing the question generically

Did you watch the video? If not then maybe thats the reason you don't know how he came to his conclusions

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

Please explain how one uses Scripture as the norma normans comes to a conclusion from that that Scripture must not be used as the norma normans? Does't his conclusion invalidate the very thing that lead him to that conclusion - thus indicating the conclusion likely false? And how does one regard the RCC as accountable so as to investigate it and doing thus conclude that the RCC is not accountable but rather infallible? Isn't the conclusion arrived at by something that is wrong, thus the conclusion likely is wrong? And how can one assume the role of arbiter to determine the correctness of the RCC lead one to conclude that he is not an arbiter and thus his arbitration is wrong? One uses the very things one affirms as WRONG to conclude something is RIGHT. Either the conclusion is faulty OR the process is right and he/she cannot be Catholic. Logically, either way, the conclusion is faulty at best.



.

 

[Athanasias]

Did you watch the video? If not then maybe thats the reason you don't know how he came to his conclusions

good point. Hahn came to his conclusions from his study of the bible and his reading of many Catholic books that seemed to him to makes biblical sense. He also looked to the Fathers of the Church. But his main reasons were scriptural as his book and tapes on his conversion story metion. Perhaps Josiah needs to read "Rome sweet home"
Amazon.com: Rome Sweet Home: Our Journey to Catholicism (9780898704785): Scott Hahn, Kimberly Hahn: Books

then he'll know how Dr Hahn came to his conclusions.


But most likely Josiah just want to fight and not really listen to Hahn s story so this is useless.

 

[TheCatholic]

Please explain how one uses Scripture as the norma normans comes to a conclusion from that that Scripture must not be used as the norma normans?

I don't know any Normans, and I don't know anyone named Norma.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

good point. Hahn came to his conclusions from his study of the bible and his reading of many Catholic books that seemed to him to makes biblical sense.

Ah.

So he used Scripture as His Rule to come to the conclusion that Scripture should not be the Rule. I see. But if Scripture is NOT the Rule (as the RCC and LDS insist it is not), then how did he come to the right conclusion using the wrong Rule?

And if he placed himself as the arbiter for doctrinal truth to come to the conclusion that the correct arbiter is the RCC, then why should he conclude he made the right arbitration since he's the wrong arbiter?





.

 

[TheCatholic]

Ah.

So he used Scripture as His Rule to come to the conclusion that Scripture should not be the Rule.

Ironic isn't it.
As Christians we know that the Bible is the written word of God.
And yet the Bible itself says there is more to what Jesus did than is written within its pages, and it tells us how Jesus chose men to lead his church.

So in a certian way you are actually somewhat correct.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Ironic isn't it.
As Christians we know that the Bible is the written word of God.
And yet the Bible itself says there is more to what Jesus did than is written within its pages, and it tells us how Jesus chose men to lead his church.

So in a certian way you are actually somewhat correct.

Sounds a little ambiguous to me

 

[TheCatholic]

Yes. I know.
Because he wasn't precisely correct, but he was in the ballpark