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.
Oy. You are familiar, I assume with the book of Acts from the Christian scriptures? It notes (Acts 23:8) that the Pharisees believed in the resurrection. Post-second-temple Judaism maintained this belief down to the present day. In fact, belief in the resurrection is listed by Maimonides as one of the 13 Principles of Jewish belief.
Since the first Christian religion the Catholic Church was started by Peter and the Apostles, as given the authority by Jesus, why woud yo think that Catholics may not be saved, just because they are Catholics?
I'm not a Catholic. I'm non denominational. I suppose you could call me an evangelical.
I take the judge not scripture to mean we are not to determine who is going to hell and who is going to heaven.
As to sin, we're all sinners, whether it's sinfulness related to sexuality or any other type of sin, God abhors it all and we should all strive to not sin. And if we're going to focus on someone's sin, there's plenty of it to focus on in ourselves so we shouldn't have to go around pointing the finger at others.
Yes. Do you?
***
Yep....do you understand that the Church is NOT to mingle with the world or the church? Notice big C versus little c.
Do you understand that there will be a counterfeit religion so close to the real that people will be sucked in by it,despite its various names....one wrong pitted against another wrong? (which is happening right here in this forum.)
Do you know the true meaning of Church is "called OUT ones?"
Not a building or a denomination?
Better yet...if I pointed out an acre field for you and said....Danny there is a pot of silver buried in that field, its yours. Would you look for it? Leaving no stone uncovered, no patch of ground not dug up? Or would you sit in a chair a couple or 3 hrs. out of the week and wait for some guy standing behind a podium to tell you where he thinks it is.
My bet is YOU would do the searching.....how much more precious is God's TRUTH than that pot of silver. How much more valueable a soul than that silver.
Yet we sit in the pews and are fed by men, when God told us, the Holy Spirit would be our teacher and our comforter.
We are once again people controled by Pharisee's with their own man made Satan's Kingdom agenda's.....and the old serpent roams to and fro like a Lion looking for whom to devour. Looking like an angel of light....we are bugs to a light that destroys.
Your point? Abortion, homosexual, America etcetera are not words found in Sacred Scripture -so what? If you are trying to make a succint point -spit it out...
There is no Christian bashing, except for the bashing of the idiot who the article is based-on. And that's well deserved, and is really more "Idiot Bashing" than anything else...He just happens to call himself a Christian.
99.9% of the people posting to this thread can plainly see that.
Personally, I was interested in the discussions this article has started.
Personally, I was interested in the discussions this article has started.
I believe that and I do believe that I know where it's coming from. Tell us just what it is you learned here today
The Church is to be IN the world but not OF the world. We are to be a light to the world. We are to be salt. We are not to love the things of this world, but we are to love the world as God so loved the world.
I understand there will be a counterfiet religion. But I'm not sure how close to the real it will be. The things that would have convinced the elect, were it possible to convince the elect of the false religion, were miracles. There are already many counterfiet religions, but they will collapse into one.
The Holy Spirit uses ministers to feed us among other methods. There's nothing wrong with sitting in a pew and being fed by a man led by the Holy Spirit and having the Holy Spirit confirm to you the truth of what the man is saying.
The problem is when people sit in a pew being fed by a man and the Holy Spirit is not a part of it. And the people think that by being in the pew they have done something good and that if they do enough good they will be saved. That's not trusting in Jesus, that's earning your way to heaven and that only works if you are perfect.
Sorry, but no matter how much you try to castigate me, there are issues with C-N that you would be better served to investigate yourself rather than spending time arguing them with me. I agree, in principle that we are a non-creedal people, but a hesitancy to sign in agreement to the 2000 BF&M raises some flags as does the raising of bureaucratic excuses concerning the investigation of C.N. Perhaps C.N. was fully conservative when you were there. Perhaps wolves have wandered in with the sheep. If someone were raising questions regarding my alma mater I might doubt them, since it is a strongly conservative (but not entirely) institution; but I would at least investigate a little further to see what the beef is. That is what the TBC is doing. In the mean time, here are some other sources... And, by the way, it is ma'am.
-- William M. Pinson Jr. (1977-1982), Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary.
Pinson called the conservative movement a "serious crisis" and resigned Golden Gate Seminary in 1982 to become the executive director of the Baptist General Convention of Texas, where he served until 1997. He is a T.B. Maston lecture speaker at Carson-Newman College, serves on the faculty of Baylor's Truett Seminary, directs the Texas Baptist Heritage Center of BGCT and writes for BaptistWay Press, an alternative curriculum produced by BGCT.
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=18437
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=19567
--Tennessee Baptists launched an investigation into teaching at Baptist schools, following complaints that most religion teachers at Carson-Newman College aren’t inerrantists and all members of the biology faculty are “theistic evolutionists.”
http://www.ethicsdaily.com/article_detail.cfm?AID=5164
http://www.abpnews.com/news/news_detail.cfm?NEWS_ID=354
http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=print_topic;f=8;t=000256
How many elect will there be again? I don't remember.
We are not told. You are probably thinking about the 144,000 Jews who will accept Jesus during the Great Tribulation. 12,000 from each tribe. This has been a verse that has been misinterpreted, usually by cults. For example, I had a Jehovah Witness tell me that he was one of the 144,000. He wasn't even of Jewish heritage.
Revelation 7:4 - And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.
after the 12 thousand from each of 12 tribes
After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number , of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne
It is very wide-spread, I am afraid, Dean.
My husband, who is a Methodist minister and I have talked about this many times. We both believe that statements made against any religion or race are one step away from committing a hate crime.
I'm not going to quote any bible verses here, though. I understand what the Bible says about the way we should treat others. Even if they do attend a different church than ours, are a different race or religion, etc.
So, in the famous words of Forrest Gump: "That's all I have to say about that."
The issue is scriptural truth. Earning your salvation is not possible, and anyone who believes that their salvation is due to their works, or the words or actions of another human, is deceived, and definately headed to hell.
Since all were declared anathema (bound for hell) in 1546 unless they accept the apocrypha as part of the canon of Scripture, you have your answer. :-)
Since the traditions of the Roman Catholic Church stand or fall by the apocrypha writings alone, one can easily see they either had to do that or go down the tubes.
"But the early Catholic Church leaders who were familiar with the Hebrew texts clearly distinguish Canonical and Apocrypha writings. The writings of Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Jerome, and Bishop Melito of Sardis (170 A.D.) indicate a recognition of the difference between inspired Holy text and the Apocrypha.
Church leaders such as Origen, Tertullian, and Hilary of Poitiersand - Hilary of Poitiers, exclude the Apocrypha from Sacred canon by their count of books.
As stated, the Apocrypha was never even declared authoritative scripture by the Catholic Church itself until the council of Trent some fifteen hundred years after Christ established the Church.
And despite some RCC objections, and claims that these were always part of canon, the facts speak for themselves.
This is even clearly admitted in the New Catholic Encyclopedia which states:
St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries...For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church.
This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent" (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon).- T.Warren
Just as surely, you realize that a post like this will generate flame wars...your plea for "just honest discussion" is naive at best, and more probably disingenuous.
Surely you read in the article that the sentiment expressed within the sign doesn't reflect mainstream Baptist thought.
Just as surely, you realize that a post like this will generate flame wars...your plea for "just honest discussion" is naive at best, and more probably disingenuous.
This is even clearly admitted in the New Catholic Encyclopedia which states:
St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries...For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church.
This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent" (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon).- T.Warren
You weave a web of deceit -do you do so intentionally? LOL
Trent was not an infallible council, it was providential, The early Church clearly affirmed the deuterocanonicals, and when the Church issued Jerome to create the Vulgate translation, it clearly held to the canon as it is today. It is true that an infallible declaration did not come until Trent; however, an infallible pronouncement does not declare something new. The canon was under controversy during the period -as such, Trent settled all disputes.
LOL!!!
What of Tradition not contained in Sacred Scripture (including your apocrypha writings)?
The issue is scriptural truth. Earning your salvation is not possible, and anyone who believes that their salvation is due to their works, or the words or actions of another human, is deceived, and definately headed to hell.
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.