[LibertyGirl77]

***What constitutes proof for you if not arguments? ***

Actually, I've read Scott Hahn's stuff, too, and found it all to be argued from a very Catholic point of view (understandably, I might add). The problem with that is if you are protestant, you've already heard the arguments for Catholicism and rejected them. Scott Hahn may make the arguments a little better than most, but he doesn't address the real issue, which is a fundamentally different perspective and way of looking at the Scriptures between Catholics and Protestants.

Obviously, Scott Hahn had to go through a tremendous change in his way of thinking in order to convert to Catholicism. But he never tells us how he came to that new way of thinking, or how we can, or even why we should think that way, too. Instead, he just presents the same arguments from his new Catholic perspective and expectes Protestants to just "get it." But we don't get it.

[pseudo-justin]

Obviously, Scott Hahn had to go through a tremendous change in his way of thinking in order to convert to Catholicism. But he never tells us how he came to that new way of thinking, or how we can, or even why we should think that way, too. Instead, he just presents the same arguments from his new Catholic perspective and expectes Protestants to just "get it." But we don't get it.

see my reply to xzins in post #20 on this thread. it looks like we have finally come to some sort of agreement, namely, that there are extra-scriptural principles that inherently affect one's reading of scripture, and to the conclusions one will come to when reading scripture. these extra-scriptural principles, if true, lead to a true understanding of scripture, and, if false, lead to a false understanding of scripture. that there are extra-scriptural factors that affect one's reading of scripture is trivially obvious, but the principle of 'sola scriptura' does not account for these and thus leads its practitioner into crisis