Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Baptist church 'fake pope' sign attracting attention, criticism (Pope Bound for Hell).
Knoxville News-Sentinel Co. ^ | April 13, 2005 | JEANNINE F. HUNTER

Posted on 04/14/2005 12:00:51 PM PDT by 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.


TOPICS: Front Page News
KEYWORDS: agitator; apostacy; apostasy; apostate; apostolicsuccession; baptist; bigots; bornagainbigots; cary; catholic; catholicism; catholicpriest; dedmundjoaquin; fundamentalism; fundamentalist; gahenna; hades; hateonparade; hatingforchrist; hell; heresy; heretic; heretical; hypocrisy; hypocrites; idiotsonparade; kittychow; kkk; livinginthepast; magisterium; maryworship; newbie; nutcase; nutjob; papacy; pope; popery; popishheresies; priest; priesthood; purgatory; rc; romancatholic; romancatholicism; talibaptist; talibaptists; transubstantiation; trollrus; wacko; whackjob; whoburntanabaptists; zotbait
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 701-720721-740741-760 ... 1,461-1,467 next last
To: Thorin
I'm thought you might not be able to leave this alone; that's good. You should be troubled, though of course you're avoiding the obvious issue, and cast about desperately for more comfortable targets.

So, if you've nothing to fear, why not actually look at the Scriptures? You say you believe them. Surely there can't be any harm in looking at them, and thinking, can there? Not saying you did, but actually doing it?

Or you could keep bringing up as many non sequiturs as you could think of, trot out cliches, try to quiet your conscience.

And after all that's done, the issue will still be: will you begin to trust Christ alone for salvation? Will you begin truly to trust God's Word as sufficient?

Or will you continue in willing thralldom?

Your issue.

Dan
(Thos Scriptural questions you're trying to avoid)

721 posted on 04/15/2005 11:33:03 AM PDT by BibChr ("...behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?" [Jer. 8:9])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 717 | View Replies]

To: TattooedUSAFConservative
Did you even bother to read where I said we know full well that the Old Testament is Jewish?

The line of debate is not drawn upon whether it is "Jewish" or not - it is whether we owe the Roman church the credit for "giving it to us." That is where the debate started on this thread regarding the subject of the Scriptures. The Roman "church" did not give us the Bible, least of which the Hebrew Scriptures. Ironically, the Roman church included books from the Septuagint (the LXX was translated from Hebrew to Greek circa 270 BCE) in their Bibles. Protestants did not, and only have the 39 books of the TaNaKh (the "Old Testament" to y'all). So, on the basis of the LXX, the Roman "church" actually have a book 2/3rds if which is "canonized" by rabbis. Actually, to be fair, even though the Roman "church" has this issue with "canonizing" and want everyone to bow to them and thank them for the Bible - the ancient rabbis do not. They believed what is "canon" is what is received - not what a council says.

When Jerome was still in diapers, there was a group of Jewish scribes called the Ben Asher family. Without their traditions of vowel pointings, none of us could translate the Hebrew into a language used today. We all owe the Ben Asher and Ben Naftali familes for the Hebrew used in our Bibles. Every Bible in use today, whether Catholic, Protestant, or Judaic uses the Ben Asher text of the "Old Testament".

Paul understood the relationship between Israel and the Scriptures - and Roman Catholics who deny it, only sound shrill. The issue always comes up when someone has a problem with a Catholic tradition. When someone quotes Scripture, the Roman Catholic then has a tendancy to try to destroy the argument by saying that the Scriptures themselves come from Rome. They did not. And one would think that if they did, they would be a greater part of Roman Catholicism. They aren't. The scholars of Scripture for the most part do not attend Catholic seminaries. They are in Hebrew Yeshivas and some Protestant seminaries and institutions.

What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of G-d.

Romans 3:1-2 Roman isn't mentioned as who was entrusted with the Scriptures.
722 posted on 04/15/2005 11:33:13 AM PDT by safisoft (Give me Torah!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 716 | View Replies]

To: OkieAcres
Take it up with St. Paul (cf. Romans 5:12). Pelagianism (and much later, Socianism) is the heresy that denied original sin. Pelagians originally denied even that human death was the result of Adam's sin. But St. Paul denies that as well (1 Cor 15:21). The Apostles and the Fathers taught that man is now born with original sin.

The claim that the doctrine of original sin entails the justification of abortion is absurd. Evil is a privation of goodness, and thus evil is always parasitic on goodness; evil cannot exist on its own. So, no thing is pure evil. No baby is pure evil. Fundamentally, everything is good, including all babies. But that does not mean that all babies are free of sin. It just means that they, being fundamentally good, are tainted, marred, with sin. Grace restores nature; it does not replace it. The claim that all babies, on account of their original sin, should be aborted is as absurd as the claim that all sick people should be killed.

-A8

723 posted on 04/15/2005 11:38:06 AM PDT by adiaireton8 ("There is no greater evil one can suffer than to hate reasonable discourse." - Plato, Phaedo 89d)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 720 | View Replies]

To: animoveritas

Keep tap-dancing. Intellectually honest people see your routine as quite transparent. The opinions of the rest would apparently only matter to you. LOL


724 posted on 04/15/2005 11:40:19 AM PDT by Matchett-PI (The DemocRAT Party is a criminal enterprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 697 | View Replies]

To: safisoft

I have never seen such lies about Grace in the Catholic church. You are truly ignorant.


725 posted on 04/15/2005 11:47:13 AM PDT by Nov3 ("This is the best election night in history." --DNC chair Terry McAuliffe Nov. 2,2004 8p.m.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 698 | View Replies]

To: BibChr

Your arrogance in your own self-assuredness is saddening. Seriously, you condescend to anyone who thinks differently from you to the point of absurdity. I will pray for you; pray as a Christian, since being a Catholic makes me one (though you disagree). The fact that you cannot see that beyond your own bigotry is such a tragedy. May Christ open your eyes, your mind, and your heart that you may see past your own inflated ego.


726 posted on 04/15/2005 11:47:32 AM PDT by Romish_Papist (Canonize Pope John Paul the Great as patron Saint of the unborn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 721 | View Replies]

To: BibChr
>>>>>>Or will you continue in willing thralldom?

Yes. I actually find the great J. R. R. Tolkien's theological arguments highly persuasive. As did C. S. Lewis, whom Tolkien persuaded to return to Christianity. Alas, Lewis' Northern Irish background instilled in him an anti-Catholicism that not even Tolkien could fully erase, to Tolkien's great distress, but the two men together certainly made an enormous contribution to Christian thought.

727 posted on 04/15/2005 11:48:54 AM PDT by Thorin ("I won't be reconstructed, and I do not give a damn.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 721 | View Replies]

To: adiaireton8
Comon man, I was not being serious about aborting babies because of their "apparent sin". I was just saying that people that do have abortions must have something against having that baby. Maybe it is that terrible ORIGINAL SIN.
I mean people are punished in our society and others all the time for "sinning". Just think of all the "sin" that doesn't go unpunished in this country. And we have abortion to thank for that unpunished sin. Oops...
Have I stumbled into a predestination debate now?
728 posted on 04/15/2005 11:59:54 AM PDT by OkieAcres
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 723 | View Replies]

To: Modernman

"Name one position held by Pope John Paul II, for example, that is incompatible with American conservativism." -Modernman

Would he have agreed with America's Framers about the proper structure of government in both church and state?

When one studies the history of New Testament "church government", one can readily see that the bottom-up, checks and balances, Republican form of limited government that America's Framers gave us, is based straight out of the New Testament CHURCH GOVERNMENT example. [Acts 6:3; 1:15, 22, 23, 25; 2Cor.8:19, etc.]

Paul, Barnabus and Titus are shown as installing the elders that were chosen by the congregations [Acts 6:3-6; 14:23 and Titus 1:5].

Paul says to the whole church congregation: "Pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom whom we may appoint to this duty." (of servant aka deacon)

The apostles had the *unique authority* to found and govern the early church, and they could speak and write the words of God. Many of their written words became the NT Scripture.

In order to qualify as an apostle someone had to had seen Christ with his own eyes after he rose from the dead **and** had to have been specifically installed/appointed by Christ as an apostle.

In place of living apostles present in the church to teach and govern it, we have instead the writings of the apostles in the books of the NT.

Those New Testament Scriptures fulfill for the church today the absolute authoritative teaching and governing functions which were fulfilled by the apostles themselves during the early years of the church.

Because of that, there is no need for any direct "succession" or "physical descent" from the apostles.

"Now we [God's elect individuals / The Bride of Christ / The invisible universal church of God] have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God, in order that we might know the things that are freely given to us by God' (I Cor. 2:12).

1 John 2:27

Romans 8:28-30; 9:11-13; Acts 13:48; Eph. 1:4-6

John 6:65

BTW, I'm curious. If Rome cannot affirm the authority of Scripture apart from the caveat that tradition is necessary to explain the Bible's true meaning, can you explain how that does NOT make tradition a superior authority to Scripture?

And since Rome claims infallibility for itself, can you explain how that doesn't make the Scriptures ultimately irrelevant.


729 posted on 04/15/2005 12:05:20 PM PDT by Matchett-PI (The DemocRAT Party is a criminal enterprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 719 | View Replies]

To: safisoft
It seems to me the point in this whole little mess is that you do not think the Council solidified the list of which Books in the present Bible. I never said who wrote them, and I agree with you that they are the inspired Word of God. All I was saying was that the Bible as we know it today, was put together, in it's present form, and codified by the Council. Where is the arguement?

You, on the other hand seem to be filled with so much disgust and hatred for the Catholic Church and anything associated with it (and disproportionately with St. Jerome) that if I, or anyone here said the Pope wears a nice cassock made by the Papal tailor, you'd likely rail about how it was the sheep that gave them the wool that matters and not anything the Papal tailor did.

As an aside, you seem, as you said, to "want everyone to bow to them and thank them" meaning the Ben Asher and Ben Naftali families for the Hebrew used in our Bibles. Agreed. I have no problem with that. But to say the prominent codified list of Books included was not set down by the Council is simply foolish.

You go on to say: "When someone quotes Scripture, the Roman Catholic then has a tendancy to try to destroy the argument by saying that the Scriptures themselves come from Rome."

I have never met a Catholic who thinks the Scripture was written in Rome. Nice try though.

"They did not. And one would think that if they did, they would be a greater part of Roman Catholicism. They aren't."

The heck they aren't. The Mass is the Scipture.

"The scholars of Scripture for the most part do not attend Catholic seminaries. They are in Hebrew Yeshivas and some Protestant seminaries and institutions."

Exactly which scholars are you talking about? Are you implying there are no Catholic scholars of Scripture? No institutions dedicated to their study in Rome or run by the Roman Catholic Church? Wow. Just... wow.

730 posted on 04/15/2005 12:05:58 PM PDT by Romish_Papist (Canonize Pope John Paul the Great as patron Saint of the unborn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 722 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
I will pray for you my friend, that you shan't fall to the tagline warning. Your reason has truly degraded to incoherent babble. You have time, may I recommend you use it to save your soul?

As you cling to a 2001 whine from an angry ex-nun over the timeless works of a universally acknowledged theologian; as you think a finite book can transcend an infinite God; as you think places have authority; as you think petitio principii is a logical argument your pride becomes a great stain on your soul.

Seek grace that you may find truth.

731 posted on 04/15/2005 12:07:23 PM PDT by animoveritas (Dispersit superbos mente cordis sui.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 724 | View Replies]

To: TattooedUSAFConservative

Never fails, ever.

Point people to Jesus Christ as the sole sufficient Savior, and to God's Word as His sole sufficient self-revelation, and Roman Catholics become unglued -- without an atom of self-awareness.

Dan
Galatians 4:29


732 posted on 04/15/2005 12:09:58 PM PDT by BibChr ("...behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?" [Jer. 8:9])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 726 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
"And since Rome claims infallibility for itself, can you explain how that doesn't make the Scriptures ultimately irrelevant."

With respect, that would make sense only is every single thing Rome uttered was considered infallible. The use of Papal Infallibility is EXTREMELY rare. But to answer your question, how can infallibility make the Scriptures irrelevant if the entire basis for the Church rests on Christ; Christ who left us the Scriptures through His Divine will? If anything, the infallible pronouncements issue not necessarily from the Pope as much as from the Holy Spirit. They do not supercede Scripture, they issue from the Holy Spirit, thus confirming Scripture.

733 posted on 04/15/2005 12:13:22 PM PDT by Romish_Papist (Canonize Pope John Paul the Great as patron Saint of the unborn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 729 | View Replies]

To: BibChr
>>>>>>Never fails, ever.

>>>>>>>>Point people to Jesus Christ as the sole sufficient Savior, and to God's Word as His sole sufficient self-revelation, and Roman Catholics become unglued -- without an atom of self-awareness.

Yes, it never fails. Every time some arrogant pinhead insults Catholics and asks them to leave the Church established by Christ and join his one-man church found in his basement, based on beliefs that were not found in apostolic Christianity and were unkown until a short time ago (and are different from the beliefs of others operating similar one man churches), they are reluctant to follow him. And he can't figure out why.

734 posted on 04/15/2005 12:19:45 PM PDT by Thorin ("I won't be reconstructed, and I do not give a damn.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 732 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
Peddling the same refuted and illogical claptrap to someone else. Sad...

Pax

735 posted on 04/15/2005 12:21:02 PM PDT by animoveritas (Dispersit superbos mente cordis sui.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 729 | View Replies]

To: BibChr
I'm sorry but did you not just accuse someone else here of avoiding the issue? You've just done the same. I put a statement to you, and as opposed to addressing it, you went back on a tirade about how we reject Christ. You state that Catholics do not believe in "Jesus Christ as the sole sufficient Savior, and... God's Word as His sole sufficient self-revelation" yet I have said we do indeed. Everything in our liturgy stems from and flows back to Christ.

The catch here is you place limitations on God. Not us. We recognize that God, if He so wills it, can be with us here and now in any way He desires. Remember that as you go to sleep tonight. As far as not having an atom of self-awareness, do you see just how much like a Pharisee you sound? I imagine you don't. And for that reason, I will pray to the Most Holy Trinity for you.

736 posted on 04/15/2005 12:24:34 PM PDT by Romish_Papist (Canonize Pope John Paul the Great as patron Saint of the unborn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 732 | View Replies]

To: animoveritas
" may I recommend you ..save your soul?"

You may make your recommendations, but I hate to tell you that only God can "save souls."

You are a real piece of work - you don't even believe the apostle John: John 6:65

737 posted on 04/15/2005 12:33:46 PM PDT by Matchett-PI (The DemocRAT Party is a criminal enterprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 731 | View Replies]

To: adiaireton8
Your arguement about Mary needing to be sinless sounds like the human mind struggling to understand God; placing limits on God. This same type of reasoning resulting in Arian Heresy.

Arius reasoned that since Jesus was begotten, he must have had a beginning, associating the word (begotten) generation, to be = with creation.

This heresy resulted in the Sola Scriptura Council of Nicene in 325.

The books of the Bible were either written by the apostles or approved of by the apostles.

What is the standard for this belief about Mary? Can it be traced to the apostles?

In 1854, Pope Pius IX declared that Mary was freed from original sin by a special act of grace the moment she was conceived in the womb of Saint Anne. (Ineffabilis Deus)

There are three possibilities:
1) this is an apostolic tradition handed down through the ages
2) Pope Pius IX had a special revelation
3) Pope Pius IX made it up by building on past church actions and statements

Reading his decree in 1854, the answer is most definately number 3.

He ends his decree with ...

Hence, if anyone shall dare--which God forbid!--to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should are to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he think in his heart.

Simply amazing. The pope decides there was a special act of grace (never mentioned before) and it automatically happens, I mean happened. Pope Pius IX never said the apostles believed in the special act of grace. Pope Pius IX never said he had a special revelation. Pope Pius IX simply stated the church believed this and that, so therefore there was a special act of grace. He made it up! Is God limited by our limited minds? God works in ways we can not comprehend. There is not always a rational explanation.

You might say that since Pope Pius IX is Pope he had the keys and was able to bind and loose. So either Pope Pius IX decided how God was to handle Jesus' birth (over 1800 years before Pope Pius IX was born) or Pope Pius IX changed history by his decree (insert weird SciFi reasoning of cause and effect) or Pope Pius IX is a fallible man.

Simple amazing.

738 posted on 04/15/2005 12:34:17 PM PDT by Tao Yin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 692 | View Replies]

To: animoveritas

Do the indoctrinated know they're indoctrinated?

Kind of makes me think of what it must be like to grow up in a "DemocRAT" family. "Ifen' the DemocRAT Party wuz guud enuf fur ma daddy - it's guud enuf for mae." LOL


739 posted on 04/15/2005 12:38:33 PM PDT by Matchett-PI (The DemocRAT Party is a criminal enterprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 735 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
Ah, so Calvinism it is. Yes, of course it is more proper to follow a church founded by a man, than the Church founded by Christ. Especially if the doctrine of that false church frees you from responsibility for good works on earth.< /sarcasm >

Read the context of your reference. You do realize that John Ch 6 is irrefutable testimony to the Catholic dogma of the True Presence. As the Catholic Church is the only source for this flesh (the Eucharist), it appears salvation has another component you overlooked.

Pax

740 posted on 04/15/2005 12:47:21 PM PDT by animoveritas (Dispersit superbos mente cordis sui.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 737 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 701-720721-740741-760 ... 1,461-1,467 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson