Geniunely curious abt Catholicism? Learn from Scott Hahn

jockster SG

For those of us who would like to learn more about Catholicism, I would like to recommend a book written by Scott Hahn. Scott Hahn was a Presbyterian minister, the top student in his seminary class, a brilliant Scripture scholar, and militantly anti-Catholic, and the book tells you about his "conversion" to Catholicism.

I started this thread as I felt that there were many questions about our faith in numerous posts in this forum. To put it one way, there the threads were full of "lively debate". Whatever the initial intent of those threads, i felt that some of the threads wound up as rectorical Catholics vs the world "arguements".

For Catholics, this book is a great read about Scott's journey in faith. For non-Catholics this book may shed light on your questions about Catholicism from a protestant perspective.

I would like to state clearly that i don't have an agenda to "convert" anyone with this. I just think that there many insights in the book that we can all learn from.

My 5 cents on it is : Read the book and draw own conclusions from it. Whether you agree or disgree it's still up to you. Whatever the case maybe, i'm sure you'll be enlightened from the experience.

More details on the book can be found at : http://www.getfed.com/product_detail.cfm?ID=531&AID=164&new=yes
If you interested, you can buy it online, or from most Catholic bookstores in Sgp. Additionally, i willing to lend my copy of the book to anyone sincerely
interested in learning more about our faith.

More on Scott Hahn

Ph.D., Marquette University (1985-95) Systematic Theology Summa Cum Laude (Phi Beta Kappa)
M.Div., Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary (1979-82) Systematic Theology Summa Cum Laude
B.A., Grove City College (1975-79) Theology, Philosophy and Economics Magna Cum Laude

Scott Hahn was a Presbyterian minister, the top student in his seminary class, a brilliant Scripture scholar, and militantly anti-Catholic ... until he reluctantly began to discover that his "enemy" had all the right answers. Kimberly, also a top-notch theology student in the seminary, is the daughter of a well-known Protestant minister, and went through a tremendous "dark night of the soul" after Scott converted to Catholicism.

Now these two outstanding Catholic apologists tell in their own words about the incredible spiritual journey that led them to embrace Catholicism.
Their conversion story and love for the Church has captured the hearts and minds of thousands of lukewarm Catholics and brought them back into an active participation in the Church. They have also influenced countless conversions to Catholicism among their friends and others who have heard their powerful testimony.

Written with simplicity, charity, grace and wit, the Hahns' deep love and knowledge of Christ and of Scripture is evident and contagious throughout their story. Their love of truth and of neighbor is equally evident, and their theological focus on the great importance of the family, both biological and spiritual, will be a source of inspiration for all readers.

jockster SG

No takers? I've got the book in my hand, ready for anyone interested?

What do you have to loose? Rolling Eyes

SingaporeMacross SG

Ah yes, Dr Scott Hahn. Heres his site. http://www.mindspring.com/~darcyj/files/drhahn.html

jockster SG

Isn't it interesting that no one wants to take up this offer?

I guess it's preferable to post anti-Catholic rethoric than to read about an ex-protestants point-of-view. I wonder what's there to loose by reading a harmless book?

Hmm, maybe the some people are afraid that their Anti-Catholic "untruths" will be dispelled. So it's better to close your eyes and maybe this dumb Catholic will go away, and stop bugging people to read a darn book.

Confused

Honeybunz SG

I have never read this book. But I have read The Confession of a Roman Catholic and The Catholic Church Has The Answers. Both written by an ex-Protestant Minister who was an anti-Catholic.

ventin SG

well, i do know of a few links talking about how Catholics convert to Protestants. Some are in Catholicism for decades before making a break. I am sure their understanding of the Catholic church is no less than this Scott Hahn. Can i post the links here?

aloka SG

Good readings

http://www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/ebidx.htm

*made it clickable

aloka SG

Particularly this one. Keep an open mind Smile

http://www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/beyond/beyond01.htm

*same for this

Icemoon SG

I think Neon belongs to this group .. haha

Why not you start a new topic? "Geniunely curious abt Christianity? Learn from xxx"

SingaporeMacross SG

By all means go ahead. It is good to hear both sides of the story.

Honeybunz SG

Hmm.... I was also actively involved in a Protestant Church and then went to the Catholic church. Why didn't I publish a book? hehe

Anyway, mine was quite straightforward. Nobody preached to me. Nobody brainwashed me. I did read up some Catholic literature and some Protestant ones. In the end, I decided to read something more neutral, rather than 1 sided (I shall not mention which book(s) that I read was one sided). I went to the school library to dig out all the history books and ecyclopedia. And all trace the Catholic Church back to the beginning of church history.

This is a very brief introduction of my conversion....hehe. There are actually a lot a lot more... but then, I lazy to write. That's probably the reason why I didn't write a book like Scott Hahn did. heheh

Icemoon SG

Wah .. this is the main reason why you switched? No offense, but I think that is a bit silly.

s|nNeD SG

go ahead... Smile

Honeybunz SG

Like I said, it's a very brief introduction of my conversion. Haven't gone deep into what I found out. The first thing that made my question my faith was when a non christian asked me which protestant denomination is the right one since there are so many of them and all have very different foundations.

But the fact is, history books and encyclopedia all agree that the Catholic church is the original church. Original church can't go wrong. This means that if the Catholic Church went wrong, then which demonimation that sprang out from it could go any more right. But of course, the newer ones will tend to deny this by saying that it's a Catholic conspiracy. No offence.

Attended classes at both places and ask questions why they think/teach/say this and that, before I came to a conclusion.

But not sure if I have time to go deep into it yet. Cuz by quoting examples and findings, I have to start digging all the findings that I have kept somewhere for a long long time.

the Bear SG

well, ever heard of the Holy Spirit?

and the saying "He moves in mysterious ways"?

what right do we have to question and pass comments about the faiths of others?

would you want others to pass comments about your faith?

or force their beliefs on you? even if those people think they're doing "the right thing"?

religion is a personal thing... no one has the right to force their beliefs on others nor deride their path to their faiths, no matter what religion it is...

Icemoon SG

The first thing that made my question my faith was when a non christian asked me which protestant denomination is the right one since there are so many of them and all have very different foundations.

Most protestant denominations have the same foundations. Justification by faith. Sola Scriptura etc. Charismatic churches also have such foundations.

Your non christian friend asked a good question, but I shall ask a better one. Which denomination is right? Roman Catholic or Orthodox Church? You can say they have almost identical foundations, but they still split. So God cannot prevent the Great Schism or He allowed it?

But the fact is, history books and encyclopedia all agree that the Catholic church is the original church. Original church can't go wrong.

My question last time was left unanswered - if Peter was the supposed Rock, how come James was the head of the Jerusalem Church and not him? I think the "diocese" of Rome came after the "dioceses" of Jerusalem, Alexandra and Antioch?

I dunno what is original church since the church was not an institutional body from the very beginning.

This means that if the Catholic Church went wrong, then which demonimation that sprang out from it could go any more right.

Hah, what logic is that? It is like saying evil parents will give birth to evil children. No good children can come out of evil parents?!

Honeybunz SG

Originally posted by Icemoon:
[b]The first thing that made my question my faith was when a non christian asked me which protestant denomination is the right one since there are so many of them and all have very different foundations.

Most protestant denominations have the same foundations. Justification by faith. Sola Scriptura etc. Charismatic churches also have such foundations.

Your non christian friend asked a good question, but I shall ask a better one. Which denomination is right? Roman Catholic or Orthodox Church? You can say they have almost identical foundations, but they still split. So God cannot prevent the Great Schism or He allowed it?

according to History, they split because of culture and language difference. Both are teaching the right thing. Therefore, today, both Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches allow their members to attend each other church on Sundays.

But the fact is, history books and encyclopedia all agree that the Catholic church is the original church. Original church can't go wrong.

My question last time was left unanswered - if Peter was the supposed Rock, how come James was the head of the Jerusalem Church and not him? I think the "diocese" of Rome came after the "dioceses" of Jerusalem, Alexandra and Antioch?

Peter IS still the Rock as stated in the Bible. Jesus was the one who called him the Peter (Rock) and told him to look after his sheep (which means his people). Henceforth, Peter has been the leader of the apostles and disciples who are the early group of Christians.

In the line of popes, James name was not in there.
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/List-of-popes
http://europeanhistory.about.com/library/readyref/blpopes1.htm?terms=list+of+popes

I dunno what is original church since the church was not an institutional body from the very beginning.
[/b]
It is very dangerous to go too deep into this "the church was not an institutional body".

This means that if the Catholic Church went wrong, then which demonimation that sprang out from it could go any more right.

Hah, what logic is that? It is like saying evil parents will give birth to evil children. No good children can come out of evil parents?![/b]

Well, I will agree that no good children will come out of evil parents if the children get all their teaching from the parents and not anywhere else.

In the case, all those who choose to break away from the original church learn all the Catholic teaching before forming their own group. I won't say they will not bring out all the teachings into the new group. It will just be incomplete.

And I will still stick to my saying... if the Catholic teaching is wrong, new demonimations and branches that sprang out from it could go any more right since all their leaders learn from the Catholic Church though not everything. In conclusion, Protestant does only have the partial teaching.

Let's also use the example you quoted using parents and children.
Who will know the grandparents better, the parents or the children?
Who will get the most teachings from the grandparents, the parents or the children?
In this example, grandparents is God, the parents are the Catholics and the children are Protestant.

Both Roman Catholics and Eastern Othodox can trace its ancestry back to the Apostles and those who have lived or walked with Jesus. How wrong can they go?

SingaporeMacross SG

God may not will something bad. God has given us free will and does not interfere with our freedom. God however gives us the grace to live in harmony unity and peace what we do with it remains up to us. Because of the effects of Original Sin we are prone to arrogance, pride and sinfulness.These are usuallt the things which bring about most of the problems the human race has.

The fullness of truth subsists in the Catholic Church with the Bishop of Rome as the successor to St Peter.

http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=18847&hl=

My question last time was left unanswered - if Peter was the supposed Rock, how come James was the head of the Jerusalem Church and not him? I think the "diocese" of Rome came after the "dioceses" of Jerusalem, Alexandra and Antioch?

I dunno what is original church since the church was not an institutional body from the very beginning.

Actually, the seat of the Church isn't Jerusalem, but rather Rome. The Rock was a person, not a place. So where Peter went, there went the foundation of the Church.

The Church immediately tried to fulfill the mandate to "go out to the ends of the earth baptizing in the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit." The Church never saw Jerusalem as its home, but it did see Peter as its leader, which is why the Church "grew up" around Rome. Also, James only had the authority to head the Jerusalem church, whereas Jesus, in making Peter the rock, gave him authority over the entire Church.

Also, it depends on how you define "institutional body." The fact that it may not have had the organisational structure that it had now does not void its existence. Likewise, the Catholic Church did not begin at the date in which it had such a structure, but has existed in apostolic authority and belief from the very beginning.