Posted on 03/11/2004 11:48:05 PM PST by Salvation
Pinging all those who are thinking about Coming Home to the Catholic Church.
Please notify me via Freepmail if you would like to be added to or removed from the Catholic Discussion Ping list.
There are many holes in Dr. Scott Hahn’s beliefs and “conversion” that I won’t take the time to discuss. From independent sources it appears Dr. Scott Hahn is a loose cannon at best. This was the same conclusion I came to in reading this article. As only one example in his testimony he says,
“They read more Scripture, I thought, in a weekday Mass than we read in a Sunday service.”
This is an astounding statement since these are the same Sunday services he was pasturing. One would hope that if this was the case he would have included more scripture in his sermons. There are many more of these “weird” assertions throughout this testimony.
I know this may seem like a Protestant (a Calvinist no less) bashing a Catholic but his doctrine and beliefs seem to be erratic and the examples are too numerous to mention here. But as one example, in his Protestants days he was involved with a hard-core Arminian youth group while professing to be a Calvinist. Now he’s involved with charismatic Catholics and his Catholic beliefs and teachings are suspect at best. Please do not take my word for it but see the following Catholic website:
http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/hahndebate.asp
I was going to post it but it is 82 pages long.
Because he's changed his mind you now consider him suspect? After all, the two greatest heretics of all time, Luther and Calvin, changed their minds.
I looked at him with a blank stare. I could feel sweat coming to my forehead. I used to take pride in asking my professors the most stumping questions, but I never heard this one before. And so I heard myself say words that I had sworn I'd never speak; I said, "John, what a dumb question." He was not intimidated. He look at me and said, "Give me a dumb answer." I said, "All right, I'll try." I just began to wing it. I said, "Well, Timothy 3:16 is the key: 'All Scripture is inspired of God and profitable for correction, for training and righteousness, for reproof that the man of God may be completely equipped for every good work....'" He said, "Wait a second, that only says that Scripture is inspired and profitable; it doesn't say ONLY Scripture is inspired or even better, only Scripture's profitable for those things. We need other things like prayer," and then he said, "What about 2 Thessalonians 2:15?" I said, "What's that again?" He said, "Well, there Paul tells the Thessalonians that they have to hold fast, they have to cling to the traditions that Paul has taught them either in writing or by word of mouth." Whoa! I wasn't ready. I said, "Well, let's move on with the questions and answers; I'll deal with this next week. Let's go on."
First of all, in my respectful non-Catholic opinion, 2 Timothy 3:16 doesn't have to use the word ONLY when describing the value of scripture because verse 17 goes on to use the words "complete" and "every" when describing the benefits. If scripture will in fact make a believer complete in everything he does, what need is there of anything more?
In addition, it is not to say that non-Catholics such as myself believe that nothing at all should be used in addition to scripture, ie extrabiblical writings and teachings, so long as those are based on scripture. If something is contrary to scripture, it should rightly be disregarded.
Oh, and to use prayer as an example pitted against scripture is absurd, considering that scripture itself instructs us to pray! It's actually an example of 2 Timothy 3:16 in action.
And with regard to the next quoted verse - and no doubt you've heard this argument before - back when Paul was teaching, all the early Christians had were his oral instructions and early writings, in addition to the Tanakh or OT. The word traditions in effect means oral transmission of the body of precepts, ie the illustration and expansion of the written law. And once again, if it lines up with scripture, great. If it is contrary to scripture, not cool at all.
It's like HarleyD's tagline says - 2 Timothy 2:15, "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."
I think that's a fair question. I've looked through a number of websites. There were some that offer quotes of the "family of the Trinity" to promote some of his books. While I was curious as to what "family" meant, to me that description is a little vague to whether he actually believe the Holy Spirit is feminine in nature. All I can go by is what the traditional Catholics are saying about him on the website I provided above. Someone is not correct. You Catholics need to slug this out.
While searching for this I did find an interest part of his history which is not explained in his testimony. I'm not trying to bash a Catholic, just trying to give full picture of this gentleman. This statement squares with his testimony that while he was a minister he also held another job. References are provided at the website.
Mike Gendron, the founder of the Proclaiming the Gospel, a ministry of former Catholics, investigated Hahn's touted position with the Presbyterian Church. He reported that: "The Presbyterian Church of America (PCA) had no record of his ordination or any record of Trinity Presbyterian Church, the church where he had been a pastor. Mr. Hahn acknowledged these facts but offered an explanation. Trinity Presbyterian was an independent church with an average attendance of 30 when two of its elders laid hands on him in a private ceremony in 1982. He served as their Associate Pastor for about two years. The church remained independent until its closing in 1986. Mr. Hahn told me the reason for his private ceremony was because he did not feel he was very qualified to serve as an elder at age 26, but needed the ordination to take the pastor's exemption from Social Security."
http://ww2.forwilliam.org:8002/discernment/catholicism/scott_hahn.htm
Do I detect a bit of resume embelishment?
I haven't seen the movie so its difficult for me to comment on. However, the scripture paints Satan (as well as all angelic beings) as masculine. (And he laid hold of ... Satan, and bound him for a thousand years;" Rev 20:2)
No fat little cherubs can I find. :O)
I'm not sure why Mel felt a need to change this. But people always seems to have a desire to want to tinker with the scriptures.
If that's his belief, then he's a kook. I also think the whole charismatic movement is goofy. My only point is that people change and often correct their religious beliefs over time. Martin Luther and Calvin, however, just went the wrong way.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.