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.
There is no need to apologize if you are right. But you are already assuming that you have the authority to determine who has Church authority, when you interpret 2 Cor 1:12-14 as implying that there is no need for Church authority with regard to the meaning of Scripture. In other words, you are begging the question, assuming the conclusion you are trying to prove. You are, for example, assuming that what Paul writes in 2 Cor 1:13 applies to everything in the Bible. Peter himself refutes you, since Peter says that some of the things Paul writes are
"hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction." (2 Pet 3:16)
You yourself are "untaught"; in fact, you deny the very need for a teacher or teachers with regard to understanding the Bible and Christian theology. I have already pointed out that the existence of 30,000 Protestant denominations (since publishers started putting Bible's into every person's hands), shows clearly that your interpretation of 2 Cor 1:13 is not correct. Paul wrote in Greek. But already you have need of someone to translate what Paul wrote into English. So, since you don't read Greek, everything Paul wrote is, without some human help either to translate or teach you Greek, something you cannot "read" or "understand". Why is that so hard to understand? Do you think Paul wrote in English?
One of the worst situations to be in is to not know that you don't know.
-A8
Are you a religious pluralist? Do you think all roads lead to God?
-A8
I don't even understand this sentence. It doesn't make any sense to me. I take it that you are demanding Scripture texts for this claim: that Christ left a visible Church.
Your assumption that there must be a Scripture text for every theological truth is false. Thinking that there must be a Scripture text for every theological truth is a doctrine called "sola scriptura". Sola scriptura is a modern invention, that arose during the Reformation. (The Church originally had no New Testament, until it was written down and then, 300 years after Christ, codified into the official canon by the visible Church. So the Scripture comes to us through the visible Church. Your use of the Scripture, and your dependence upon the Scripture *presupposese* some visible flesh and blood authority to write these books, copy and preserve these books, and then determine which of these books are canonical. If you are interested in a thorough refutation of 'sola scriptura', read Not by Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine edited by Robert A. Sungenis.
Once you have 'sola scriptura' out of your system, then you can read the Church Fathers (since 'sola scriptura' makes reading the Fathers a waste of time). Then, you will see how heretical Gnosticism is, and then you will see how Gnostic is the very notion that Christ established an "invisible" or "spiritual" Church.
-A8
-A8
The sacraments are means of grace. Through baptism, our sins are washed away, and we are buried with Christ, and joined to His body, the Church. See post #1298 for verses supporting these claims. The early Church Fathers agreed that baptism should not be witheld from babies. That shows that they did not view baptism as merely symbolic (in the Gnostic way of viewing the sacraments, but rather as efficacious. (Even Anglicans, and Lutherans and Presbyterians agree with Catholics on this point.)
Regarding the thief on the cross and the necessity of baptism, James Akin has a helpful discussion here .
baptism is definitely not worthless.
Well, at least it is not worthless. (/sarcasm)
I highly recommend it to all the believers out there.
Why? It is just a symbol, right?
The resurrection of Jesus saves us,
If the resurrection of Jesus saves us, then do you believe everyone is saved (i.e. are you a universalist)?
You use the label Gnostic rather loosely since the original Gnostics believed that Jesus was somehow less than human and more spiritual than fleshly. You might want to brush up on your church history.
One does not need to believe every single thing the early Gnostics believed to be a Gnostic. Once you start comparing Gnosticism with historic Christianity, you will see how Gnostic you are. As Newman says, "to be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant". This is in large part because one discovers the difference between Gnosticism and Christianity.
We do need a church.
Which one? Or, will anything which calls itself a "church" do?
We do need to do what Jesus taught (though I don't recall Him using any sacraments).
You don't recall the institution of the eucharist, on the night in which he was betrayed, where He said "Take, and eat. This is my body"? You don't recall Him commissioning the disciplines to baptize all nations?
-A8
I appreciate you posting Scripture to support your beliefs. And I appreciate your non-combative mode to arriving at the Truth via the Scriptures. There are at least 2 words in Hebrew for the word "hell"; one is sheol which simply means the place of the dead, 6 feet under if you didn't see my earlier post. The other is "gehenna". Outside the city of Jerusalem was a garbage dump that was constanting on fire with all the garbage that had been dumped on it through the years.
As you can see with the Scriptures you posted "hell" is used in different ways.
NIV Matthew 5:29
If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.
Jesus Christ in this verse and others you posted are a figure of speech. If one cut off his hand would he be sinless? No. He is saying if something gets in your way of following him and doing his commandments cut THEM off. This could be the love of anything else more than loving Jesus Christ.
NIV Matthew 10:28
Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
This is another usage of the word "hell". I don't know how to explain the usage here.
NIV Luke 16:23
In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side.
This is a parable and is not to be taken literally.
NIV 2 Peter 3:10
But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire , and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.
12. as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire , and the elements will melt in the heat.
13. But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness.
You posted a number of Scriptures that have the word "fire" in them. I have been told that whenever "fire" is used in the Bible it is indicative of purification. I don't see it in all the verses you posted but I do see it in most. Fire purifies the earth and everything is burned off and what is left is laid bare. The destruction of the heaven we have now will be destroyed by fire so we can then enjoy the uncorrupted new heavens and earth. This happens after death and Hades and those not found in the book of life are thrown into the lake of purification because we cannot have a home of righteousness if there are still ungodly people or whatever are still around. They will be destroyed from the prescence of Lord forever.
("There is no greater evil one can suffer than to hate reasonable discourse."
There is no reasonable discourse with you.
-A8
I must have missed that part. As for the Holy Father's charisma to teach infallibly; that is a limitation of his commandment from Our Lord to confirm the faith of his brethren. And, they all as a group, confirmed by Peter, have the authority to bind and loos, both in heaven and earth. God would not have given them that authority unless he was going to guard them with his Holy Spirit, and he says as much at the time by declaring that the gates of hell will have no power over them.
However, the Pope's charism was not what we were talking about. We were talking the nature of the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ. You said "Thats news to me" (Post 1290), and preceded to quote Paul at length. 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.
For how shall we fill people with blind faith in the correctness of a doctrine, if we ourselves spread uncertainty and doubt by constant changes in its outward structure?
...Here, too, we can learn by the example of the Catholic Church. Though its doctrinal edifice, and in part quite superfluously, comes into collision with exact science and research, it is none the less unwilling to sacrifice so much as one little syllable of its dogmas... it is only such dogmas which lend to the whole body the character of a faith.
-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)
Although Hitler did not practice religion in a churchly sense, he certainly believed in the Bible's God. Raised as Catholic he went to a monastery school and, interestingly, walked everyday past a stone arch which was carved the monastery's coat of arms which included a swastika. As a young boy, Hitler's most ardent goal was to become a priest. Much of his philosophy came from the Bible, and more influentially, from the Christian Social movement. (The German Christian Social movement, remarkably, resembles the Christian Right movement in America today.) Many have questioned Hitler's stand on Christianity. Although he fought against certain Catholic priests who opposed him for political reasons, his belief in God and country never left him. Many Christians throughout history have opposed Christian priests for various reasons; this does not necessarily make one against one's own Christian beliefs. Nor did the Vatican's Pope & bishops ever disown him; in fact they blessed him! As evidence to his claimed Christianity, he said:
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.
-Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)
The only exclusive one??? You don't think there should be just one Pope at a time? You think there should be more than one Pope at at time???
Even Peter and Paul had their differences (On matters of traditions) and that should speak volumes.
The Church has always recognized the fallibility of its leaders, including Peter himself, who denied Christ three times. Peter's denying Christ three times did not result in Christ removing the keys from Peter and giving them to someone else.
I don't believe in tyranny of man made governments
Neither does the Catholic Church.
and I do not believe in tyranny of an earthly Church
And neither does any Catholic. How about trying not to attack a straw man, ok?
Suppose a demon became a head of this one earthly Church system.
That is impossible. Not only must the Pope be a human being, but, Christ has promised that the gates of hell shall not prevail against His Church. And if Satan took over the Church, that would definitely imply that Christ's promise had been broken.
Man is weak and often lust for power,
Every Catholic agrees. How about focusing on something other than a straw man?
that is why I only look to Christ as a means for my salvation not a fallible human sitting on a earthly throne.
Christ did not say that possession of the keys by Peter depended upon Peter being perfect or infallible. You have to deal with the keys. You seem to think that failings on Peter's part give you a free pass to reject Christ's appointed authority. Such a doctrine is not in the Bible. Rather, we see that Eli retained his authority, in spite of his sinfulness. The Pharisees retained their authority (sitting in the seat of Moses, as Christ says) in spite of their hypocrisy. Caiphas retained his authority, in spite of his rebellion against Christ. Peter retained his authority, in spite of denying Jesus three times, and in spite of his hypocrisy in Antioch (Gal 2:11ff).
How did you learn what to test for except through the Church? Even the Scriptures come to you through the Church. You want to use the authority of the teaching of the Church to judge the Church. But the Church is a greater authority than the teaching of the Church. The teaching of the Church would have no authority without the authority of the Church. The teaching of the Church derives its authority from the Church. Hence, the teaching of the Church does not have greater authority than the Church. Therefore, you cannot make the teaching of the Church greater in authority than the authority of the Church, which is exactly what you are doing when you say:
Note I am not stating that all the Popes, preachers etc are false teachers. However I do believe in questioning, not blindly following certain doctrines. Divinity of Christ, death for salvation and Resurrection, possessing the incorruptible seed and of the word of God is what we test for.
Of course we should test for these things. But always under the authority of the Church, from whom and through whom we have received the Scriptures and the teaching regarding what to test for.
-A8
Hitler does not get to determine what "True Christianity" is. Only the authorities of the Church get to do that.
-A8
By the way, the Eastern Orthodox church has more of a leg to stand on concerning direct input or initiative in determining the Bible.
"That is not a straw man, that is fact, the Roman Church was an tyrannical monster using God as a means of control."
Notice I said was. Luther knocked some sense into "her", no more offering indulgences for sale to build Basilicas and the like.
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.