Calling All Protestants

[Livin_the_MASS]

Make sure you read all of [url="http://www.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m4/pp.html"]THIS[/url] to get your facts straight.

Note: This man was a protestant and converted to the Catholic Faith

God Bless
Jason

[Bruce S]

The door swings both ways, everyone knows that. Some elect IN, others OUT.

I guess one needs to settle in wherever the Lord leads ya.

[Livin_the_MASS]

[quote name='Bruce S' date='Apr 4 2004, 12:04 PM'] The door swings both ways, everyone knows that. Some elect IN, others OUT.

I guess one needs to settle in wherever the Lord leads ya. [/quote]
I don't understand the statement be more clear?

[Bruce S]

Scott Hahn, the darling of the Catholic lay theologians, isn't quite the heavyweight that some would make him out to be, it is worthwhile to look into Scott with a more critical eye, to see where he is a lightweight really.

Go read, it starts a few pages down from the top.

[url="http://withchrist.org/hahn.htm"]http://withchrist.org/hahn.htm[/url]

[Livin_the_MASS]

hahahahahha what will they come up with next, whatever man, his books have the seal of the Church.[i] Imprimatur and the Nihil Obstat.[/i]

That article was nonsence! A persons opinion.

Bruce you won't prove the Catholic Church wrong.

God Bless
Jason

[Bruce S]

[url="http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9711/carlin.html"]http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9711/carlin.html[/url]

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Bruce S' date='Apr 4 2004, 12:10 PM'] Scott Hahn, the darling of the Catholic lay theologians, isn't quite the heavyweight that some would make him out to be, it is worthwhile to look into Scott with a more critical eye, to see where he is a lightweight really.

Go read, it starts a few pages down from the top.

[url="http://withchrist.org/hahn.htm"]http://withchrist.org/hahn.htm[/url] [/quote]
That was a disappointment. It really does a good job of dodging the issues and does little more than ad hominem attacks to try and discredit certain converts. Silly. Such tactics work quite well against protestantism. All of the reformers can be blasted and discredited far more thoroughly than this. I'm tempted to do this for you, but its kind of tacky and not really all that productive anyway.. Not to mention its a pretty half-arsed way to debate.

[Livin_the_MASS]

[quote]There are numerous passages that speak of the age between the First and Second Comings as a time of great sorrow and strife for Christians. One revealing passage is the parable of the wheat and the weeds (Matt. 13:24–30, 36–43). In this parable, Christ declares that the righteous and the wicked will both be planted and grow alongside each other in God’s field ("the field is the world," Matt. 13:38) until the end of the world, when they will be separated, judged, and either be thrown into the fire of hell or inherit God’s kingdom (Matt. 13:41–43). There is no biblical evidence that the world will eventually become totally (or even almost totally) Christian, but rather that there will always be a parallel development of the righteous and the wicked until the final judgment. [/quote]

Read the above! The individual members that make up the Body of Christ are sinners. I'm a sinner, I do things wrong thats why I go to confession, because when I sin I harm my relationship with God, the Church, and even myself.

People make mistakes, do you? I know I do. Sounds like your being judgemental about what people are not doing instead of praying for them!

God Bless
Jason

[Bruce S]

Hey, I wasn't the one that STARTED out, glorifying Hahn, was I?

If HE is put into play, as this thread did in the OP then countering that link, with another link that had a contrary point of view is Kosher.

I've watched Scottie on EWTN, and have listened to him in verbal debates with Protestant opponents, some of which went for HOURS, argh, honest, and frankly, in one on one debates with equally talented opponents, they eat him alive, sorry.

What makes Scott even vaguely unique, is that he is one of few trained Protestant ministers who converted, who can be trotted out as proof that the Catholic Church is "right" .. in our circles, he is just a midweight and wouldn't make much on the lecture circut.

He uses too may softie arguements and personal allegories that clutter up things with his touchie feelie way of presenting his point of view.

And remember, I have listed over and over to him, so I'm speaking with some degree of experience.

[Bruce S]

[quote]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. [/quote]

[url="http://www.aomin.org/Aboutdebates.html"]http://www.aomin.org/Aboutdebates.html[/url]

This is the one debate I would LOVE to listen in on...

[MagiDragon]

[quote]Scott Hahn, the darling of the Catholic lay theologians, isn't quite the heavyweight that some would make him out to be, it is worthwhile to look into Scott with a more critical eye, to see where he is a lightweight really.

Go read, it starts a few pages down from the top.[/quote]

ummm . . . dude, that article simply avoids the questions scott had. And rather than answer them, as scott managed to do, it simply shunts them to the side.

I really think that this is a case of 'you'll see what you wanna see.'

I admittedly didn't wanna see scott fall, but i had reasons why i didn't see scott fall:
1. the guy doing the accusing didn't site *his* stats (hey, if yer gonna say that scott's not done his homework, you'd better show that you have.)
2. the guy didn't actually approach scott to get his facts straight.
3. he used loaded language to convey his message, not facts. ("The trapped Scott Hahn continues:", "Scott Hahn never got the "homework" done.", "Had he continued to search")
4. he ignored that it took several years for scott to convert, it wasn't a spur of the moment decision

[Livin_the_MASS]

I've meet him brother, I've seen his talks in person.

Your opinion that you just gave about him is a very poor one.

Experience, well I guess I've got it then, I've read almost all of his books.

But that doesn't matter, what matters is accepting the Truth with humility!

God Bless
Jason

[MagiDragon]

[quote name='Bruce S' date='Apr 4 2004, 12:33 PM']
[url="http://www.aomin.org/Aboutdebates.html"]http://www.aomin.org/Aboutdebates.html[/url]

This is the one debate I would LOVE to listen in on... [/quote]
me too. are we sure that such a debate hasn't happened though? and are we sure that there was a challenge rendered in a formal way?

that website's information is fairly old, at least 6-7 years since they updated the stuff about hahn. ("That was in January of 1991---over six years ago now.")

[Brother Adam]

lol. okay okay. I'll bite. Who are your "heavy hitters" that will eat scott hahn alive?

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Bruce S' date='Apr 4 2004, 12:33 PM'] [quote]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. [/quote]
[url="http://www.aomin.org/Aboutdebates.html"]http://www.aomin.org/Aboutdebates.html[/url]

This is the one debate I would LOVE to listen in on... [/quote]
These debates mean very little to me, they are showy spectacles. I don't blame Hahn for not debating White (although I wouldn't mind seeing such a debate in kind of a morbid, curious sort of way), I've read and heard many of White's debates and I am not convinced that the man is interested in anything other than winning the debate at any cost. This is not fruitful, it turns into whoever has the smoothest rhetoric. I am familiar with the debates mentioned in your quote. That debate between Fr. Pacwa and White was a disaster, I don't think Fr. Pacwa should debate, he's not good at it at all. There was not a single point in that debate made by White that does not have a good answer. So while it seemed like White smoked Fr. Pacwa, in reality White is still wrong because the objections to the things he was saying were never put forward, and he was not called on his many misrepresentations of facts and his many crude and forced Biblical interpretations. And as usually, he spun a lot of empty rhetoric. Anyway, I don't think one can come to the truth by listening to these kind of hyped up public spectacles. If I was Hahn I wouldn't sink so low as to participate in this nonesense either. I might debate someone like White through mail or email (that's a big MIGHT, because even then his style is crawling with creepy rhetoric and distortions), but a public debate would kind of be sinking too low. And White has been smoked many, many times as well (you won't find this on his website), Matatics mopped the floor with White, and I've read plenty of online debates where White gets dusted. Like I said, I don't think it proves much. It's just a flashy show, and personally I think something as Sacred and Christian doctrine should be treated with more dignity then to be argued behind a mask of rhetoric and intentional misrepresentations (aka, lies!). I have seen White get totally debunked in an argument, and still use that same argument on other people as if it had never been definitively refuted. That's just wrong.