Posted on 07/18/2005 4:52:18 PM PDT by A2J
I'm in the process of doing research on those people who have hurt the Church (universal) both in the past and in the present.
I would appreciate any help in gathering the names of those you think whose positions, actions, practices, etc., have done harm to the Body of Christ, although they may have been well-intentioned.
Would you please list your pick(s) and a brief summary of why you chose them. For example, Augustine is considered a "church father," although his writings encouraged the marriage of church and state for the purpose of societal transformation, even if it required forced "transformation" (i.e., military force, police actions, etc.). Another example would be Benny Hinn, Bob Tilton, Rick Warren, etc.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Martin Luther
My first thought as well.
Why pick such a narrow topic?
Do you have any other suggestions? I'm open.
Why Luther? Can you briefly give a reason?
Thanks.
You can probably find that every Christian that ever lived has hurt the Church in some way, even while thinking that he was helping the Church. Was there any heretic that was not sincere in his beliefs? You might restrict the search to the major heresies and the founders of those movements. If you do that you will find plenty of research has already been done and Google would provide an extensive sort that couldn't be absorbed in a lifetime.
Luther was in line to be Pope. Next thing you know, he starts up a diatribe against various Church practices and ends up out in the cold. He also brought about translating the Bible into the language of the people, and at the same time encouraged scholars to learn the old languages of Latin and Greek so they could read the material for themselves. Church authority of scholarship was undermined.
Thanks for the tip, however, I think you would agree that most of those whom are deemed "heretic" by some are heroes to others depending upon what spectrum of Christianity one is from. For example, what Catholics may consider heresy, Protestants consider truth.
If I would search out the major heresies and their authors, I would most probably find a slanted response in favor of Catholicism.
Conversely, Benny Hinn, in my opinion, has done great damage to the Body of Christ in toto, tarnishing Catholics as well as Protestants with his antics.
Perhaps I should just list them all from all perspectives. Hmmmmm.
Me.
There is a book titled 'Heresy', which gives a quick outline of the major heresies, which by definition are from the point of view of the Church. They were all sincere, right or wrong, and the arguments are still around. Look up the etymology of the word and see if that helps.
A heretic hunter, eh. As you surely know, being a conservative, that the mainstream press can broadcast, print, publish, etc. lies, untruths, distortions, blah, blah, blah.
By golly, you can find all the trash you want on any search engine on Hinn, Copeland, Meyers..........
Episcopal Bishop Spong.
"Luther was in line to be Pope"
He was?
I don't know very many Catholics who know who Benny Hinn is.
Charismatic Catholics are aware of the big names in Protestant Pentecostalism. (Beyond being "aware," I personally have no opinion on Mr. Hinn.)
Sola Scriptura .
Sola scriptura fails in that it is not taught in scripture. Nowhere does the Bible teach that it is the only and sole source of divine revelation. Most Protestant apologists appeal to 2 Timothy 3:16: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." The problem is that this verse nowhere makes the claim that the scriptures alone are profitable for teaching, reproof, etc. Furthermore, when that letter to Timothy was written by St. Paul, there was no codified New Testament canon. So if Timothy was to get from this verse that only scripture is the vehicle for revelation, he would have understood "the scriptures" to mean the Old Testament; and then he would have had four different canons to choose from.
Advocates of sola scriptura have diametrically opposing interpretations of scripture. For example: Baptists believe in adult only baptism; Presbyterians affirm infant baptism. Lutherans top them both by believing in baptismal regeneration. Yet, which of them would say that the earliest Christians believed the other denominations’ position? Can one seriously imagine that the apostle Peter went about teaching adult only baptism, and the apostle John went about teaching infant baptism, and the apostle James went about teaching baptismal regeneration? Contradictory teachings cannot both be "guided by the Spirit".
Thanks to Martin Luther, there are now 30,000+ protestant denominations each claiming to have authentic teaching.
One of many, as usual, but he was one of the top candidates.
oh man...you all got Luther-phobia...Sometimes you Catholics make me chuckle.
"One of many, as usual, but he was one of the top candidates."
You have any historical citations for this? It is the 1st I have heard of it.
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.