[Tantumergo]

"But all he gave were arguments....not proof."

What constitutes proof for you if not arguments?

[xzins]

Proof is "case closed" information.

Other than that there are arguments. He has his. I have mine. I weight them and then weigh them.

I've found no reason to change what I believe after that process.

"Arguments" have a "probability" of being correct. Proof is a certainty of correctness. Does that help?

[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.