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.

[Romish_Papist]

The Pope rwfromkansas was is a false teacher. I can't imagine God letting him into heaven.

Good thing neither you nor I make that decision.

[Romish_Papist]

I think it is quite possible that you are one of the rudest people on these boards.

And yes, the church did canonize the current Bible. Did anyone here say Christians wrote the books of the Old Testament? No. We know where it came from. We know the books are Jewish books. Get off your high horse. No one is saying the church canonized the Scriptures for use by Jews, the church canonized the books to be used by the church.

[OkieAcres]

What would you say that scripture in the Bible means when is says to call no man father?

You say it can't mean what the Baptist preacher said it did, else we can't call our earthly father, father. What does it mean then?

To me it means don't give men titles on this earth based on their station, or holiness in mens eyes. To me "Pope" falls under this category. As does referencing the Pope as "Holy Father".But don't despair because so does "Reverend" Franklin.

[AnAmericanMother]

It's all Greek to me to! (When it isn't Latin . . . ) ;-)

[JohnnyZ]

To me it means don't give men titles on this earth based on their station, or holiness in mens eyes.

Like "President" Bush.

Get ahold of yourself, man!

[OkieAcres]

I thought this was a theological discussion, not secular. My bad!

[Romish_Papist]

Sorry but Mormonism is not Christianity.

[Romish_Papist]

Furthermore, I served for eight years under the flag of the United States in the US Air Force. Don't you DARE question my patriotism, nor that of those who gave much more in service to their country than my own meager contribution. How many years did you serve?

[Romish_Papist]

"The important thing is you should strongly consider embracing a Protestant faith, because in many ways, decrees enacted in Rome are not ideologically compatible with American conservatism."

Guess what pal, the more improtant of the two is being true to God, not country. If something in conservatism disagrees with the faith, so be it. I'll follow God. You say to switch to Protestantism as it is more in line with American Conservatism (which is not necessarily so, abortion and contraception are two examples) but I submit to you that the full truth of God's plan does not exist to "fit the mold" of American Conservatism, rather, that same Conservatism should exist to fit the mold of God's plan.

[Romish_Papist]

"I am for Catholics, I just want them to find a Protestant church."

Your statement belies itself. Impressive. You are for Catholics, but only if they become Protestants? Only if they cease being Catholics? What kind of nonsense is that?

[D Edmund Joaquin]

yes, when the minister or the shepherd enters politics, the flock is no longer the focus, the fleecing is

[safisoft]

I think it is quite possible that you are one of the rudest people on these boards.

Thank you for you rebuke. I will try not to be so offensive in the future.

And yes, the church did canonize the current Bible. Did anyone here say Christians wrote the books of the Old Testament? No. We know where it came from. We know the books are Jewish books. Get off your high horse. No one is saying the church canonized the Scriptures for use by Jews, the church canonized the books to be used by the church.

I suppose then you think I am wrong for believing the "Bible" is made up of 2/3rds books written in Hebrew? Sorry, my point remains the same. The BIBLE was not canonized by any "church" or any council. You are free to think what you like regarding the "New Testament", but don't claim the BIBLE was canonized by Rome. As for the "New Testament" there is more than adequate evidence from the First Century that 100% of the books were received long before any canonical council met. Yes, there were additional books but it is accepted in scholarship that 100% of the "New Testament" was received and in use by the late First Century. That predates any canonical council by over 75 years. The very original basis for "canon" is that a book is received as authoritative. In this, the principles of Judaism's view of what is received was carried into emerging "church". In other words, in Judaism, men did not meet to DECLARE what was, and what wasn't "G-d's Word". It was received on the basis of consistency and inherent authority. The same principle was practiced well into the Second Century.

[Hammerhead]

Sadly, I have come to believe that the modern day church, regardless of size, is nothing more than big business.

[Romish_Papist]

"C'mon, it's so much easier to learn about the Catholic faith from someone you know who is a C&E Catholic or from your mother's friend's half-sister who told you what Catholics believe (even though she's never set foot in a Catholic church) than to actually study it for yourself."

Apparently so. Sad, isn't it?

[Okies love Dubya 2]

Yes, it is.

[Romish_Papist]

Did you even bother to read where I said we know full well that the Old Testament is Jewish? It follows that it would have been written in Hebrew orginally. Show me a Catholic who denies that.

[Thorin]

>>>>>And so it ever goes. Christians point Romanists to Christ, and God's Word, and Romanists become apoplectic.

Too bad you weren't around to "save" the author of your favorite book or the director of one of your favorite movies or its star. Sadly, JRR Tolkien and John Ford were staunch "Romanists," and even John Wayne died a "Romanist."

And Tolkien was such an obstinate "Romanist." I'd say that one-quarter or one third of his published letters concern theology, all of that horrible "Romanist" variety. And he felt that "Lord of the Rings" was a profoundly "Romanist" work, as he wrote to his Jesuit friend Fr. Murray. Such a tragedy that you weren't around to straighten out the old fool.

[adiaireton8]

This is a common question. Christ could not have needed redemption, for then he could not be the redeemer. Mary needed redemption. She was redeemed at conception, such that she was a pure (untainted by sin) vessel for Christ, and yet nevertheless in need of the salvation wrought by Christ. Both of those doctrines have to be preserved. There is no need for Mary's parents to be immaculately conceived, or Mary to be born of a virgin, because Mary did not need to receive sinless flesh at her conception in order to be Christ-bearer; she needed to be made sinless at no point later than her conception in order to be the Christ-bearer. She came into existence and was sanctified at the very same moment, such that she was never stained by stain (and thus could be a pure vessel for Christ) *and* yet also still needed the grace of Christ. Christ, however, never needed sanctification, and so could not receive sinful flesh at his conception. If Christ had needed sanctification (even at the moment of his conception), he could not have been the Savior. The Savior himself cannot be in need of salvation.

-A8

[Modernman]

The important thing is you should strongly consider embracing a Protestant faith, because in many ways, decrees enacted in Rome are not ideologically compatible with American conservatism

Really? Do tell. Name one position held by Pope John Paul II, for example, that is incompatible with American conservativism.

[OkieAcres]

How anyone could think that an innocent newborn infant is born with sin is beyond me. No wonder an abortion is of no great importance to some people. If you can believe a baby is vile and born with ugly sin already in control of it, then why NOT abort it?