scott hahn refutations

What does Hahn ask?

What claims does he make?

So far I've only read "Rome Sweet Home", and to nobody's surprise, quite enjoyed it. I'd like to get into his deeper works, but haven't yet. What specifically do you seek to refute?

Why do you call Scott a protestant? He converted, from evangelical Presbyterianism, I believe.

I have read "Mary, Queen of Angels," and "The Lamb's Supper." Both are excellent books.

Well, in my experience, Catholic apologists misrepresent history and church fathers in order to make it seem that people in the past believed exactly as they did. They don't do it purposefully, I think, but it's more of a case of tunnel vision (or complete historical obliviousness).

trooper said:

ok no kidding,

i've signed up for RCIA. But i've been reading Scott Hahn, a Bible Protestant who teaches Bible Catholicism. Has anyone else read him. He reaches this profound point, where he's begging his Protestant friends to refute his claims,... and he gets nothing. Before I swim, does anyone have something to offer, re Scott.

Click to expand...

I can't help you with Scott Hahn as I have not read any of his material.

I can give you a bit of insight on reading Catholic apologetics works from my experience in reading a book by Steve Ray, also a former evangelical who converted to Catholicism who has written several Catholic apologetics books. I took a seminary class on the Gospel of Matthew last year and for my final project I did an in-depth study of Matthew 16:13-20 (which contains the famous "You are Peter, and upon this rock. . . . ") which is the primary Biblical support for the office of the papacy.

A source I referred to frequently was Mr. Ray's book "Upon this Rock", a general study of the papacy which goes into this passage in detail. He does a nice job giving the background of the passage and how it has been interpreted. Of course, he relies heavily on Jesus' admonition to Peter at Matthew 16:19 that "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" as support for the primal role of Peter and his successors. (binding/loosing = forbidding/permitting).

What I found lacking in his discussion was an explanation of how that passage supposedly gives Peter and his successors such an exalted role in the Church when all the disciples were given this authority at Matthew 18:18, and John 20: 22-23. I personally do not see how the successor of Peter has the power to individually and infallibly override the successors of the other disciples when the other disciples were given the same "marching orders" from Christ.

So, while apologetics writers are no doubt sincere and have a valuable contribution to add to the debate, they are of course writing with an agenda and are not impartial. I commend you for looking for the other side of the story before making such a huge decision.

His books are "entertaining" but a little biased, and I don't think he can completely let go of some of the Presbyterian / Protestant stuff. It might have been Rome Sweet Home or perhaps a different book of his, but I remember reading all the way though it, how his wife was oppossed to becoming Catholic and fought him all the way, and then in the very last chapter of the book he said one thing he wished the Catholics would adopt from the Protetants is what he misses so much, the "robust singing."

I have yet to read Mr. Hahn but I respect everything I've heard about him. My priest listened to him speak a couple months ago and was very impressed.

As for the primacy of Peter. Its based on the fact that in the first account Jesus says "you are peter (petros) and on this rock (petra) I will build my church)". Petra and Petros in koine (sp) greek mean the same thing "rock". In classical greek they had different meanings (petra meant bedrock and petros meant a small pebble).. however, by the time of Christ (when these words were spoken) everyone spoke Koine greek.

Thus the word play suggests that Jesus is building the church upon Peter (although even among the fathers it was also recognized that this statement referred to Peter's confession of Jesus' true identity).

BUT,
In addition to that, in this passage Jesus, speaking to Peter, says " I give to you the keys of the kingdom".

Neither the statement about the rock, nor the statement about the keys are repeated in Matt. 18, when the power of binding and loosing is clearly given to all the apostles.
Thus the Catholics argue that the Keys were given to Peter alone.

Oh brother...Scott Hahn is the biggest idiot I have ever sat down and read- after Karl Keating. I wouldn't use that pop-theology pseudo-intellectual truncated false history and doctrine rubbish to line a kitty litter.

The truth about Scott Hahn:

He is a failed Presbyterian minister. He was a high Calvinist, and assumes the failings of such a version of Calvinism is the same across all Protestantism. (eg. an all protestantism is basically High Calvinism error) Had he have studied Lutheranism or Anglicanism he would never have converted to Romanism, because he would have seen truth. He paints all protestant doctrine in a High Calvinist charicature and fools faithful Christians into believing that what he says is really what they believe, or at least what their leaders believe or variations on that theme.

Why does he do it? Because he's a failed minister, and because he couldn't make a good (honest) living outside of the "ministry" he's invented a "ministry" to support him in Rome- he's now a professional "apologist" against Protestantism.

Not only that, he's not a particularly good Catholic teacher either. He hasn't really grasped the nature of the Church in his understanding on how things actually work in the curia or in Catholic history. He's still using Sola Scriptura to refute Sola Scriptura, so to speak. He still thinks Rome hasn't changed.

Then: he's a charismatic now too. The funky protestant branch of Romanism. How could anyone with orthodox beliefs end up there?

He's woeful with scriptures. His handling of the Greek is terrible, and he doesn't know Hebrew worth a dime. His one-time class mate Gerry Matatics (also an ex-presbyterian minister, now another professional "apologist") is far superior to him, and at least admits a more orthodox Roman position. Kinda.

He misrepresents Protestantism with straw men and fast food theology ("I'll take some doctrine with fries, thanks. Oh, and hold the critical thought and go easy on the scriptures").

He needs to get a real job, at Burger King or something, and leave his "ministry" to trained, learned Roman Catholics, or at least start from scratch in Roman learning.

Don't believe him. I don't.

I'm charismatic

cenimo said:

His books are "entertaining" but a little biased, and I don't think he can completely let go of some of the Presbyterian / Protestant stuff.

Click to expand...

Amen.

It might have been Rome Sweet Home or perhaps a different book of his, but I remember reading all the way though it, how his wife was oppossed to becoming Catholic and fought him all the way,

Click to expand...

Until he talked her into it.

and then in the very last chapter of the book he said one thing he wished the Catholics would adopt from the Protetants is what he mosses so much, the "robust singing."

Click to expand...

...and a spiritual man would have realised something. The "robust singing" is because the Spirit of the Lord dwells in the congregation. If there is no earnest desire to declare the wonders of the Lord and live the Christian life, then perhaps the message is wrong- and don't forget, the message made the culture of the church.

What I found lacking in his discussion was an explanation of how that passage supposedly gives Peter and his successors such an exalted role in the Church when all the disciples were given this authority at Matthew 18:18, and John 20: 22-23. I personally do not see how the successor of Peter has the power to individually and infallibly override the successors of the other disciples when the other disciples were given the same "marching orders" from Christ.

Click to expand...

I agree. I /also/ don't get how the successor of Peter can be elected by the other bishops. I mean surely if it's a role that is passed down, surely it would need to be directly, like our Lord did to Peter?

Timothy

Simon_Templar said:

I'm charismatic

Click to expand...

You're a Catholic Charismatic, or just charismatic?

I have a major problem with Catholic Charismatics. I'll tell you why another time.

Then: he's a charismatic now too. The funky protestant branch of Romanism. How could anyone with orthodox beliefs end up there?

Click to expand...

hey...you beatin up on me here too! (albeit I am NOT Roman)

If I recall right, isn't his dad a pentecostal minister? I don't think he's anti charismatic/pentecostal movement, just doesn't think it works within RCism

ContraMundum

When Scott Hahn had put the comments about the "robust singing" in the last chapter of that book,the way he did it it was about the equivalent of an American League player going to the National League- and then trying to convince the National League about the "merits" of the designated hitter.

ContraMundum said:

His one-time class mate Gerry Matatics (also an ex-presbyterian minister, now another professional "apologist") is far superior to him, and at least admits a more orthodox Roman position. Kinda.

Click to expand...

I believe Matatics is no longer in communion with Rome and has become a full-blown sedevacantist and Feeneyite. (Sedevacantist = the Chair of Peter is empty because the popes since Vatican II have been heretics)(Feeneyite = followers of Father Feeney, a priest who was excommunicated for his hardcore interpretation of "no salvation outside the Church").

IowaLutheran said:

I believe Matatics is no longer in communion with Rome and has become a full-blown sedevacantist and Feeneyite. (Sedevacantist = the Chair of Peter is empty because the popes since Vatican II have been heretics)(Feeneyite = followers of Father Feeney, a priest who was excommunicated for his hardcore interpretation of "no salvation outside the Church").

Click to expand...

...this touches on my point.

Gerry M is still a Protestant in spirit.

Scott H is also still a Protestant in spirit, but just manifests that differently to Gerry.

Consider the ex-prots on this forum who post at GT or OBOB and you'll see what I'm talking about.

cenimo said:

ContraMundum

When Scott Hahn had put the comments about the "robust singing" in the last chapter of that book,the way he did it it was about the equivalent of an American League player going to the National League- and then trying to convince the National League about the "merits" of the designated hitter.

Click to expand...

This makes no sense to me- I live in Australia and when I lived in the US I didn't think much about baseball.

Have you an easier analogy?