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.

[Binghamton_native]

While we're talking about Robert Sungenis, the readers of this thread might find the following essay by Mr. Sungenis of interest:

http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-pope%20errs.htm

Suffice it to say that I find it difficult to square the words of the late pontiff regarding the Jews' need of salvation with the words of St. Paul and St. Peter.

[Peelod]

Trinity...also RCC doctrine of devils....actually IHS..Isis, Horis and Seb...the egyptian trinity. PAGAN

Never heard that before.

IHS = in hoc signo

[Pelayo]

[The Church]Is NOT a system, its people!!!

True, but dose not a people need a system, an organization of the Church, as a sign of unity?

It is demonstrable that that organizational system was hierarchical since the time of the Apostles. With one bishop, several priests, and a group of deacons established whereever there was a local church.

That is the visible Church left to us by the Apostles.

[Pelayo]

The Church is the Mystical body of Christ.

the Eucharist is the Phisical Presence of Christ.

By what divine sign should I rely on your interpretation of Paul?

[BriarBey]

By what divine sign should I rely on your interpretation of Paul?
****
Gotta have those signs don't you?

Matt.16

The Pharisees and Sadducees came to Jesus and tested him to show them a sign from heaven.

A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a miraculous sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah.

******

Keep your eyes open, I'm thinking in the next few days you just may get your socks knocked off with the signs you look for over and above the only one Jesus said would be given. On second thought it may turn out where its possible you can claim the sign of Jonah, which will be so not true....we'll see.

You just may get aaalll the witchcraft you ever dreamed of, and call it holy.

[adiaireton8]

Another Gnostic. Building your entire theology of salvation on the thief on the cross. If you had studied the writings of the Church Fathers, you would see that your way of thinking is completely alien to them. They strongly rejected Gnosticism as a heresy. When Peter says, "baptism now saves you", you don't know what to do with this. On Pentecost when Peter says, "be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins", you don't know what to do with this, since in your view, we are saved by faith alone, and baptism *definitely* does not do anything to forgive our sins. When Ananias tells Saul to "Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins", this makes no sense to you, and so you turn it into a metaphor, since the notion of God working through matter is so repulsive to you. When John says, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit", you don't know what to do with this. When Jesus says, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you", you don't know what to make of this; it makes you want to throw up. All this earthy stuff makes you uncomfortable, sick; it is distasteful and disgusting, talking of water and blood and flesh saving us. Of course it makes you uncomfortable; you are a Gnostic. You can't make sense of the passage, "There is no rest day or night ... for anyone who receives the mark of his name." How can receiving a mark damn a person, since as long as they have faith in Christ, they are saved? It does not make any sense to you that Mark adds baptism as a condition to being saved. (Mark 16:16) You don't know what to make of "we were all baptized into one body", since in your view we were all made into one body by faith alone. Baptism is some worthless symbolic thing that is completely unnecessary and superfluous in your theology. There is no need for it. Faith alone is necessary. Oh, perhaps there is some pedagogical value in baptism, since it reminds us of Christ's death, or how our sins have been washed away. But baptism itself doesn't actually *save* us, heaven forbid! Matter doesn't save us; salvation is wholly spiritual, and hence only spiritual things save us, i.e. faith alone. We don't need a Church. We don't need the sacraments. We just need to believe. That's Gnosticism. All these passages don't make any sense to you.

You have the thief on the cross, and that trumps everything else so suit your Gnosic fancies. Go study the Fathers, and I guarantee you that you will see how much of Gnostic you presently are. (I was in your shoes at one time too, and I'm telling you this only because I wish someone had been straight with me. It would have saved me a lot of trouble.)

-A8

[adiaireton8]

*Not* in the Bible:
"Jesus said, many will come saying I am the Christ but in their ways they will deny me."

Actual verse (Mark 13:6):
"Many will come in My name, saying 'I am He!' and will mislead many."

-A8

[TightyRighty]

Man, you can't seem to make up your mind one way or another!

NO..no way...this one doesn't match AT ALL. I'm not catholic in the least and altho I am very relieved to NOT see the one that I know is not good.

I believe my words were the next pope is A Black Pope and he would consume the minds of men. I doubt if less than a week into it you will determine what is true or not.

Altho I will express my definate mistake in understanding exactly what was meant by A Black Pope....I really did think skin color, that's not how I was meant to interpret it.

Keep your eyes open, I'm thinking in the next few days you just may get your socks knocked off with the signs

Why would you expect people to understand you when you can't even understand you? I ask again, (because you didn't answer the first time)what makes you think your "gifts" are from God and not the Devil? Perhaps, Satan "The Great Deceiver" is using you to deceive?

[adiaireton8]

Exegesis and interpretation are not the same. Exegesis is the first step in interpretation. Exegesis requires using all the tools of linguistic analysis to determine precisely what is being said in some particular instance of communication. Interpretation takes the product of exegesis and fits this into the larger framework of the author's message, to get to the author's meaning.

-A8

[Pelayo]

You will of course note I said "Divine sign" indicating that I was looking for some indicator, or gesture of divine origin, that would demonstrat that Elsie had a special charisma to infallibly teach from scripture.

Any Jack fool can use Scripture to try and justify their own position, Satan even tried it on Christ (Matthew 4:6).

[TightyRighty]

Exegesis requires using all the tools of linguistic analysis to determine precisely what is being said in some particular instance of communication.

I'm probably going to sound every which way of stupid here but I'm REALLY trying to understand! A person can analyze (linguistics, history and culture) of a certain time period but at the end of the day they are still guessing what the author means because they weren't there.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

With regard to the authorship of the Sacred Books, too, the exegete follows the authoritative teaching of the Church and the prevalent opinions of her theologians on the question of Biblical inspiration.

If I understand that sentence, an exegete in regards to Matt. 16:18 is going to say that Peter is the rock because that is what the Church teaches.

And regarding posts #1303:

First, you don't have the authority to determine the meaning of Scripture.

Who has the authority to determine the meaning of Scripture? Why is an exegete correct and someone like Billy Graham is wrong? Both are Bible scholars and yet they interpret Matt 16:18 so differently.

I may be way off base in my understanding of your post and other items I'm reading (I wouldn't be surprised - lol) so if I am I look forward to your reply!

[BriarBey]

"The Great Deceiver" is using you to deceive?
******

ROFLOL.....Deceive who? None of you believe a thing I am saying so what is it that bugs you ssssooo bad, that I just MIGHT be right? I wasn't wrong, my error was in skin color, my relief was short lived, unfortunately. I prefer relief. I hate this, its not fun, and it is very scary. Always has been.

[TightyRighty]

ROFLOL.....Deceive who?

Anyone who might listen to you?

I wasn't wrong

Then maybe you can explain how you were right?

[BriarBey]

Then maybe you can explain how you were right?
****
Why waste my time? You're not listening, and why take the chance someone else might be?

[BriarBey]

Any Jack fool can use Scripture to try and justify their own position, Satan even tried it on Christ (Matthew 4:6).
******
Then I guess I'm living proof that God will use the foolish to confound the wise.

[jwh_Denver]

"Let me guess, we have a Jehovah's Witness here."

Far from it.

[jwh_Denver]

"Apparently, you mean to say that Christ is the only authority of His Church"

Jesus Christ gives authority to those he gives authority to in varying times and situations.

[jwh_Denver]

No.

[adiaireton8]

A person can analyze (linguistics, history and culture) of a certain time period but at the end of the day they are still guessing what the author means because they weren't there.

Guessing? No. If we were just guessing, then anybody's guess would be as good as anybody else's.

I'll give you an example. In #1281, BriarBey said,

"Jesus said, many will come saying I am the Christ (exactly what you are doing...saying he is the Christ) but in their ways they will deny me."

Notice what she put in parenthesis. She took the referent of "I" to be Jesus. In doing so, she made Jesus to be saying that many people will come and [falsely] say that Jesus is the Christ. But if you know the Greek, for example, you see clearly from the words 'hoti ego eimi' (in Mark 13:6), that the referent of the 'I' is the person who is coming, not Jesus. The 'hoti' shows us that this phrase is to be read as a quotation, which is why good English translations put this phrase in single quotes, i.e. 'I am he'. Notice, that in order to exegete the verse, I didn't have to appeal to what the Church Fathers taught, or what the Church has taught. I just looked at the Greek, and directly showed that the referent of 'I' could not be Jesus. I could have been an atheist and done the same thing.

Now if intrinsic analysis leaves the question ambiguous, then I would have to look at the Fathers, the commentaries, and the Church teaching, and see which reading best fits with the regula fide (rule of faith).

Regarding Matt 16:18, Protestant scholar Oscar Cullmann, writes in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, "But what does Jesus mean when He says: 'On this rock I will build my church'? The idea of the Reformers that He is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable in view of the probably different setting of the story. For there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of 'thou art Rock' and 'on this rock I will build' shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first. It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom he has given the name Rock. He appoints Peter, the impulsive, enthusiastic, but not persevering man in the circle, to be the foundation of His ecclesia [church]. To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected."

Cullmann is exactly right. The natural reading of the passage in the Greek, without bringing in any theology, is that Peter is the rock upon which Christ will build His Church. Matthew has to switch from 'Petros' to 'petra' to show that in the first case the sense of the term is a name [i.e. Peter], and in the second case the sense of the term is rock. Jesus isn't switching referents, i.e. talking about two differing things: Peter and his faith, or Peter and Peter's statement of faith. Jesus is talking about one thing, i.e Peter, saying two things about him: first, that he is to be called Peter (a masculine name meaning 'rock'), and second, that upon him [Peter], Christ will build His Church. In the very next verse, Jesus says "doso soi tas kleidas tes basileias": I will give to you [singular] the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Jesus has just said that His [Jesus's] Father in heaven revealed Christ's identity to Peter. Now, Jesus says to Peter, that He [Jesus] will give to Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Giving Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven, such that whatever Peter binds on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever Peter looses on earth will be loosed in heaven, only makes sense if Peter is the rock upon which the Church is built. The notion that in verse 18 Jesus is talking about Peter's faith requires two changes in subject. Jesus has to start, by talking about Peter, then switch to talking about Peter's faith, and then in the very next sentence return to talking about Peter. The natural reading is that the subject stays the same [i.e. about Peter] throughout verses 18-19.

-A8

[BriarBey]

"Let me guess, we have a Jehovah's Witness here."
****

They hate it when they can't peg you into a certain slot.
Because they know what false doctrine has been planted in every one of them and how to work it.

Satan is said to be like a Lion, roaming to and fro across the earth looking for who he can devour....

Christ talks about a remnant and will He find faith on the earth when He returns.

And people think this huge worldly, political, religious system with millions obedient to her, based in Rome is the TRUTH?

I don't think anyone has any common sense anymore, or the ability to think for themselves. Its sad, and scary.