Baptist church 'fake pope' sign attracting attention, criticism (Pope Bound for Hell).

Knoxville News-Sentinel Co. ^ | April 13, 2005 | JEANNINE F. HUNTER

[Dean Baker]

Baptist church 'fake pope' sign attracting attention, criticism By JEANNINE F. HUNTER, hunter@knews.com April 13, 2005

NEWPORT, Tenn. - Two days after being posted, a church marquee message that questions the purpose of the papacy is still attracting attention in this small community.

"What I am trying to do is to let people know there's only one way to heaven through Jesus Christ," said the Rev. Cline Franklin, pastor of Hilltop Baptist Church. "There's no need for help. God sent his son, Jesus Christ. We're all priests if we're saved. I don't need to go to anybody else to pray."

The sign's side facing Broadway, the main thoroughfare in Newport, reads, "No truth, No hope Following a hell-bound pope!" On the other side, facing the church parking lot, it reads: "False hope in a fake pope."

The message appeared days after Pope John Paul II's funeral last week.

"It is unfortunate when it comes from within the Christian church. It's really sad," said the Rev. Dan Whitman, 54, pastor of Newport's Good Shepherd Catholic parish and Holy Trinity parish in Jefferson City. "You learn how to deal with it and pray not to be that way yourself."

It does not reflect mainstream Baptist thought, said Dr. Merrill "Mel" Hawkins, associate professor of religion and director of the Center for Baptist Studies at Carson-Newman College in Jefferson City.

"When you see signs like that, they are almost like relics or artifacts of a bygone era," Hawkins said.

He spoke about animus between Protestants and Catholics persisting after the Protestant Reformation and for centuries, during which "harsh things were said, couched within misperceptions, misunderstandings."

Among the major misperceptions is that Catholics "venerate the pope on the same level as Jesus," Hawkins said, and that "the pope is connected to their salvation in place of Jesus Christ."

Catholics make up about 12 percent of the population in the South.

"Catholics are a minority faith in the South, and there's often bias toward minority religious communities because people don't understand," he said.

James Gaddis, a lay speaker who also chairs the board at First United Methodist Church, said he had not seen the sign but had heard about it.

"I understand that it's very degrading," he said. "I think it's tragic that any church group would stoop to this posture."

Following Tuesday night's council meeting, Newport Mayor Roland Dykes Jr. said he was a little saddened by the message.

"It doesn't behoove any of us to determine who is going to heaven or hell. I think the pope is a highly, highly respected person," he said.

Franklin's church is a five-year-old independent Baptist church. When asked what the message meant, he said: "What does 'pope' mean? It means father. We have a heavenly father, and the Bible says we shall call no man a father. "

He said people have been driving by or taking pictures or calling to share their views. He said the intent was not to offend Catholics and people are misunderstanding the sign.

Copyright 2005, Knoxville News-Sentinel Co.

[adiaireton8]

So the Roman Catholic Church wrote the Bible, that is news to me. I did not know Jesus was Roman Catholic.

Jesus did not write anything. The authorities in the Church determined which books belonged to the canon.

The Church is not a tyranny, in spite of her errors of the past. The Church is a living body.

The Scriptures teaches plurality among it's elders,

So does the Catholic Church. Have you noticed how many Cardinals and bishops there are?

it does not give one human the sole authority.

Have you noticed that Jesus gives the keys to *one* man?

'Upon this rock.' He did not say ‘upon Peter’, it is not upon the man, but upon his faith that the church is built.

Not true. See my post #1339 .

Explain why God chose Paul, not Peter, to be the Apostle to the Gentiles.

What is there to explain?

What about all those Churches Paul formed on his journeys.

What about them?

Churches plural!

You can't be serious. Do you really think that there being different churches in different cities is somehow incompatible with there being one visible Church? When Jesus spoke to Peter in Matt 16, he didn't say, "I will build my churches." He said, "I will build my Church" (singular). See also Acts 9:31, 20:28, 1 Cor 12:28, 1 Cor 15:9, and I could go on and on. There are dozens and dozens of references to the one visible Church throughout the New Testament.

The Ephesian elders ruled in the Church in Ephesus, not as underlings of Peter in Rome, but as appointed by the Apostle Paul so to carry out those duties.

Not true. Apparently, you don't know even Scripture very well. The first council at Jerusalem was called to answer a particular question regarding Jews. The council had to be held in Jerusalem because that was were the Apostles were.

So I guess the modern Roman position is true because modern Rome says so.

Peter had authority because Christ gave him the keys. The bishop after Peter (i.e. Linus) received those keys from Peter, being ordained by him to succeed him. Otherwise, the keys would disappear from the Earth upon the death of Peter.

I guess you think Rome has the authority because Rome said so.

I was raised Protestant. In that state, I came to the conclusion that Catholicism was correct, after a long and careful study of both Scripture and Church history.

It seems you worship an institution instead a of living God.

Well, that's another straw man. I do not worship any institution. Worship is reserved only for God. But the Church, being Christ's mystical body, is on that account worthy of honor and devotion. We care for and serve the Church, because in doing so, we honor Christ.

Even if Peter is in some sense was the head of the early church, the Bible specifies no line of succession.

Scripture does not even give us the canon of Scripture! Scripture does not give us a lot of things. You appear to be stuck in 'sola scriptura' so badly, that you can't even think outside of the 'sola scriptura' box.

Scripture does not specify that one physical church is the only true church

See all the Scriptures I mentioned above. Or just do a concordance seach on "church", and see how many times in the NT the term is used not to refer to a particular church, but to the whole Church. The whole Church is not some invisible entity; it is united, as Paul says in Eph 4:16 that the Church is joined and held together by supporting ligaments, which is the hierarchical structure of the Church. The council in Jerusalem in Acts 15 shows that the Church is unified by its organic connection to the Apostles (who were themselves unified by their organic connection to Christ), and thus to their successors.

Scripture doesn't say that Peter, or any one man can speak infallibly, since the Bible only discusses Elders, Overseers and Deacons.

All these "Scripture does not say" are arguments from silence, and indications of 'sola scriptura' thinking. The problem with your position is that unless the Church is "preserved from liability to error in her definitive dogmatic teaching regarding matters of faith and morals", you cannot be justified in your belief that Scripture is infallible. For if the Church is fallible in such things, then perhaps certain books don't belong in the Bible, or other books do belong in the Bible. When you attack the infallibility of the Church, you attack the infallibility of the Scripture (the very limb upon which you are sitting), for the Scripture can be no more infallible than those who determined its content.

-A8

[AD from SpringBay]

The church fathers is an interesting appeal. I guess you are the one who doesn't know what to do with the verses you brought up. As opposed to the writers of the Bible, the church fathers are who exactly? I'm guessing you have an approved list of people I am allowed to cite. I had a feeling we would end up here and this is where we may remain. Remember, I told you that I am one of those who view the Bible as the sole rule of faith. And so the fact that only believers are baptised in scriptures is not persuasive? All believers are in heaven. Not all those who are in heaven have been baptised. Not everyone who has been baptised is in heaven.

There is no precedent in scripture for the Bishop of Rome to exercise authority over any other church. There is the remaining question of how do you know when an utterance by Christ is literal or figurative? Who told you this? There is also the unanswered question of where, in scripture, is authority to only a few to understand scripture while the laymen shouldn't worry their pretty little heads. And speaking of scripture and understanding it, which is more authoritative - scripture or the writings of the church fathers?

Now to those church fathers - I may know some little something here, though probably not to your level. The writers known as the Apostolic Fathers, Clement, Barnabas, Ignatius, and the Pastor of Hermas, all required faith on the part of the candidate to be baptised. The earliest clear evidence of infant baptism is found in Tertullian who opposed it (AD 185). The first direct evidence in favor of it is found in the writings of Cyprian, in the Council of Carthage, in Africa, AD 253. The early councils of "the" church were all against infant baptism. For example, the Council of Laodicaea held in 360 AD demanded that those who are to be baptized must learn the creed by heart and recite it. Many of the early, prominent, Christians were not baptised in infancy. This includes Eusebius, emperor Constantine, Ephrem Syrus, and the great Augustine. Basil the Great, born of Christian parents, was baptised when he was 26. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo-Regis in North Africa (AD 353-430) was not baptised in infancy, though he did defend it. But this history is only useful. It is not necessary with the previous examples of scripture where only believers are baptised. At the very least, can you admit that faith/belief is more important than baptism? And someday maybe we'll get back to that catechism which started our whole dialog?

[Elsie]

You yourself are "untaught";

 

I am??

 

 

HMmmm.......

 

 

NIV 2 Timothy 3:14-15
 14.  But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it,
 15.  and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

Sola WHAT???

 

 

 

 

NIV Romans 15:3-4
 3.  For even Christ did not please himself but, as it is written: "The insults of those who insult you have fallen on me."
 4.  For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.

 

 

NIV 2 Timothy 3:16-17
 16.  All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
 17.  so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

 

NIV Matthew 11:29
   Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.

 

 

NIV John 6:45
   It is written in the Prophets: `They will all be taught by God.'  Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me.

 

 

 

NIV 1 John 2:26-27
 26.  I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray.
 27.  As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit--just as it has taught you, remain in him.

 

 

NIV John 7:15
   The Jews were amazed and asked, "How did this man get such learning without having studied?"

 

 

NIV Titus 2:1
  You must teach what is in accord with sound doctrine.

 

 

NIV Hebrews 8:8-12
 8.  But God found fault with the people and said : "The time is coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.
 9.  It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not remain faithful to my covenant, and I turned away from them,  declares the Lord.
 10.  This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.
 11.  No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, `Know the Lord,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest.
 12.  For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more."

 

 

NIV Hebrews 13:9
   Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings. It is good for our hearts to be strengthened by grace, not by ceremonial foods, which are of no value to those who eat them.
 

 

NIV James 3:1
  Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.

 

 

NIV Matthew 11:25-26
   At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.

 

 

NIV 1 Corinthians 4:6-7
 6.  Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written." Then you will not take pride in one man over against another.
 7.  For who makes you different from anyone else? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not?

 

 

[Elsie]

This is a parable and is not to be taken literally.

But parables do NOT use proper names; this 'story' does.

[Elsie]

However nowhere did you show me a piece of scripture that contradicted my comment that the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ; quite the contrary, most our your quotes appear to support me.

So perhaps you will be so good as to explain why the Church is not the Body of Christ. Otherwise I'm going to assume you are simply confused.

Please define 'mystical' for me, the way YOU use it.

(BTW, I never implied it WASN'T the body Christ - just not the way the RCC uses it.

It's the BELIEVERS who are 'the church', NOT the organizational higherarchy.)

[Elsie]

He said, "I will build my Church"

Quite true, but also quite different from....

He said, "YOU will build my Church"

[Nabber]

Yes, we are "saved" by Christ's death on the cross. But people accepting this and running around saying they are "saved" just doesn't cut it. Well-meaning people can slip off the True Way and endanger their souls by sinning, and are you telling me they can't end up in hell? Of course they can. So what happened to all those declarations about being "saved"? Being "saved", then, is a life-long endeavor to stay on the True Way, which is why it is said that "faith without works is dead." It takes more than just faith that you are saved.

You have misinterpreted the role of Holy Communion in many Denominations. It is simply a reminder that we are again accepting of what Christ did for us (since the day that we were "saved") and that those sins committed since being "saved" are also forgiven, BUT ONLY IF WE ASK FOR FORGIVENESS. And that is what we do at Holy Communion.

[animoveritas]

I have seen some of the exchanges you've been having with the scripture alone / faith alone crowd, and I must say well done. You are a credit to Saint Paul, especially in his dialogue with the Thessalonians.

My question is: when do you cede that the out of context misinterpretations of written tradition by these well-meaning but myopic people cross the line of Matthew 7:6, "nolite dare sanctum canibus neque mittatis margaritas vestras ante porcos ne forte conculcent eas pedibus suis et conversi disrumpant vos?"

Keep up the great work!

[conservonator]

Our Lord gave us a Church first for a reason. Your willingness to trust the ultimate "wolf", your own personal interpretation of Scripture is, to say the least, dangerous.

Your assuming that I and other Catholics don't read Scripture, poor, vain assumption on your part.

[conservonator]

Vatican I and Council of Trent.

Can you cite the particular canons?

[Binghamton_native]

Earlier in our discussions you cited the work by Robert A. Sungenis entitled "Not By Scripture Alone". In an essay entitled "When A Pope Errs" Mr. Sungenis says the following:

"The world is ripe to have the gospel of judgment and damnation preached to it from the housetops (for its own good and before it is too late), but no one at the Vatican seems to be doing so, and the pope is not leading them in that direction. Ever since the last council, the Vatican has been seeking to be extra “nice” to everyone, engaging in all kinds of “ecumenical activities” that allow for a whole host of beliefs and practices that wouldn’t even have seen the light of day in previous pontificates. In the process, the Vatican seems to have lost sight of the gospel that Noah preached, and that Jesus and Paul certainly preached, that is, that the world is under judgment and condemnation until, if and when, they repent of their sins and are baptized into Christ."

I would ask you and Mr. Sungenis the following question:

When you look at America today, who would you say is doing more of what Mr. Sungenis would have done? The Roman Catholic Church or the Evangelical churches?

[Binghamton_native]

In post 1357 a8 gave you a lot of info regarding Catholic Apologetics. Understand that a8 is probably more skilled than any of us on the other side of this thread when it comes to debating skills and argumentation. As he said in an earlier post (I can't find the number just now) he teaches logic at the college level. However, that is not to say that there are no skilled apologists for the Protestant point of view. Just as a starter here is a link to an article by James White discussing his debate with Robert Sungenis regarding the "Peter is the rock" issue:

http://www.aomin.org/Epitetaute.html

With a little searching on the internet you can find plenty more.

Regards

[TightyRighty]

Thanks, I'll look into it!

[Elsie]

Your assuming ...

You assume that I assume.

---

I can TELL that the Scriptures, whatEVER they plainly say, are to you what the Authorities in your organization say they mean.

[Elsie]

Your willingness to trust the ultimate "wolf", your own personal interpretation of Scripture is, to say the least, dangerous.

 

 

And I could probably paraphase this comment thus:

 

 

Your willingness to trust the ultimate "authority", your organizations interpretation of Scripture is, to say the least, common in cults.

 

 

(Looks a bit different this way don't it?)

[Elsie]

My question is: when do you cede that the out of context misinterpretations of written tradition by these well-meaning but myopic people cross the line of Matthew 7:6, "nolite dare sanctum canibus neque mittatis margaritas vestras ante porcos ne forte conculcent eas pedibus suis et conversi disrumpant vos?"

 

 

THIS one?

 

Matthew 7

 

 1.  "Do not judge, or you too will be judged.
 2.  For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
 3.  "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?
 4.  How can you say to your brother, `Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?
 5.  You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
 6.  "Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.
 7.  "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.
 8.  For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.
 9.  "Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone?
 10.  Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake?
 11.  If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!
 12.  So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
 13.  "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.
 14.  But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.
 15.  "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.
 16.  By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
 17.  Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.
 18.  A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.
 19.  Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
 20.  Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
 21.  "Not everyone who says to me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
 22.  Many will say to me on that day, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?'
 23.  Then I will tell them plainly, `I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'
 24.  "Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock.
 25.  The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock.
 26.  But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand.
 27.  The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash."
 28.  When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching,
 29.  because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law.

[Elsie]

NIV Matthew 15:21-28  21.  Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon.  22.  A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession."  23.  Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us."  24.  He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."   25.  The woman came and knelt before him. "Lord, help me!" she said.  26.  He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."  27.  "Yes, Lord," she said, "but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table."  28.  Then Jesus answered, "Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted." And her daughter was healed from that very hour.

NIV Mark 7:24-30  24.  Jesus left that place and went to the vicinity of Tyre.  He entered a house and did not want anyone to know it; yet he could not keep his presence secret.  25.  In fact, as soon as she heard about him, a woman whose little daughter was possessed by an evil  spirit came and fell at his feet.  26.  The woman was a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia. She begged Jesus to drive the demon out of her daughter.  27.  "First let the children eat all they want," he told her, "for it is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."  28.  "Yes, Lord," she replied, "but even the dogs under the table eat the children's crumbs."  29.  Then he told her, "For such a reply, you may go; the demon has left your daughter."  30.  She went home and found her child lying on the bed, and the demon gone.

[Natural Law]

Catholics have the Sacrament of Confirmation in which a person, of the age to know the difference between right and wrong accepts, Jesus as their personal Saviour. How is this not "Born Again" by fundamentalist standards? More importantly, how does the Rev. Billy Joe Bob reconcile the admonition that we are not here to judge, but to be judged?

[animoveritas]

Information was provided in the post.

nolite dare sanctum canibus neque mittatis margaritas vestras ante porcos ne forte conculcent eas pedibus suis et conversi disrumpant vos

[conservonator]

The difference is that I trust His Church, which He charged with teaching and giving us the canon of Scripture. You trust your own interpretation of said Scripture. Your may have the map, but you're holding it upside down.