Are We All Lutherans?

I was recalling something an old college professor of mine once said while making a point about the Protestant Reformation. He said that if not for Martin Luther, there would be no Baptists, Methodists or other Christian denominations.

Now, I won't say that his statement was colored by the fact that he himself is a Lutheran. He is seriously one of the most open-minded people I've ever met and I learned more from him than most teacher's I've had. (I suppose it's possible he could've been bragging just a bit, though.)

Normally, I'm not bashful about asking questions or making comments, but, for some reason, I didn't ask the question that popped into my head that day. The thought occurred to me: Does that mean that at one time on this planet, every single, last Christian, without exception was a Catholic? Are we supposed to think that there was ever once a time when there were no dissenters whatsoever. This made no sense to me.

Now, more importantly, what are the implications of my thoughts? If there were and always have been dissenters, who were they and what happened to them? Are their descendants still around? Are there churches/congregations out there whose roots precede those of what we know as the Catholic church?

It may seem an insignificant point to most modern day Christians. I'm sure it wouldn't have seemed insignificant to those who were thrown into dungeons during the Dark Ages for refusing to align themselves with the nearly all-powerful Church of Rome when it was at the zenith of it's glory.

If they paid a price for not joining the crowd, then they are worthy of being remembered for what that choice cost them. We should, with God's good help, search for the truth and latch onto it for dear life.

One last point: If these stalwart souls were never part of the Catholic Church, it would be incorrect to call them "Protestants." It would seem you would have to be part of something, to truly protest against it. It might be better to refer to them as something else: the Church of Christ.

Matthew 16:18 - And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Growing Up With Jesus

What was it like to be the Lord's brother? James and Jude were certainly humble about it and Jude wouldn't even offer to call himself the Lord's brother. I suppose that was especially understandable considering they didn't seem to believe in Him at the start of His ministry.We shouldn't judge them too harshly, though. Can you imagine what life in the house of Mary and Joseph would've been like? Can't you just hear Mary talking to the younger siblings of our Lord?

"Why don't you keep your room clean like Jesus?
Jesus' room is always strait.
And why don't you eat all your veggies, like Jesus?
Why can't you be more like your brother?"

Not only that, but what was it like to play games with Him? Did He play to win? Can you imagine James or Jude complaining to their parents about playing chess with Jesus?

"I'm not playing with Jesus anymore!
He always wins!
It's like he knows what my next move will be."

It couldn't have been easy for them. We know that our Lord was meek and mild, but we all know people that no matter how kind we are to them, they just despise us. Conversely, like the Lord's brothers, we all know those that we believe think they may be just a little too big for their breeches. Growing up with an older brother who not only thought himself the Messiah, but actually was, would certainly have been a daily challenge for the most mature of children.

I don't mean to be flippant or irreverent, but, personally, I have long found my Lord's humanity tremendously intriguing and mysterious. He was completely God and completely man. He certainly had a personality, but one unlike any other before or since. We know that He cried, but did He laugh? How did He express joy? Did He feel all the things that I feel? What Jesus was like as a child we have little indication leaving everything we say as mere opinion and speculation. We'll know more "up Yonder," I'm sure. Until then, it's a topic that certainly lends itself to some interesting speculation and, perhaps, when approached properly, some spiritual enlightenment.

Streets of Gold? Part 1

I hear a lot of talk about "streets of gold" when we get to Heaven. Preachers proclaim it from the pulpits; choirs sing it from the loft; children of God speak of them on a daily basis with tear-filled eyes. Still, I often wonder where such theology comes from, considering I've yet to encountered it in the scriptures.

The closest I've come to finding anything in the Bible about it, is the 21st chapter of Revelation. It does describe a golden city with walls of jasper, gates of pearl and four-square. Yet, when reading earlier in the passsage, I find the reference from the angel is toward the "bride, the Lamb's wife." The "bride" is the "city," but the "city" is not Heaven. "Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife." Rev. 21:10 Many somehow construe that as a reference to Heaven. I think it's painfully obvious that it is a direct reference to the Church.

It might be taken as a harmless misconception, except that it is another example of misunderstanding the association between Christ and His Church. So many are so deluded and confused about that relationship, it's no wonder they're confused about their own relationship with the Son.

I suppose we've all been guilty of using streets of gold, mansions on a hilltop, etc., as metaphors for Glory Land. Although metaphors are normally edifying, as long as they are understood to be only that, we must be careful that we don't take them literally when they are meant to be taken spiritually.

Is the Pope Catholic?

I placed this post on another blog a day or so before the passing of the Pope. I thought it might be appropriate for this blog.
*************************************************************************
I remember when I was in Basic Training at Ft. Leonard Wood Missouri, oh, I guess, April of 1981 and we were told by one of the Drill Sergeants that Pope John Paul had been shot. I remember this jerk of a Drill Corporal told me later, when I asked, that the Pope had died. I was shocked and hurt not only for myself, but for some new Catholic friends that I had made.I'm not Catholic; I'm just an old Southern Baptist boy. Still, I've learned over two and a half decades to love a man who stood up to Nazis, Communists and the forces of immorality and slavery in our world.I've watched this man, who I obviously didn't always agree with, stand for his convictions when everyone else told him it was time for change. He had the courage and common sense to understand that tradition and the tried-and-true should not be so easily cast aside.Yes, I'm quite sure that the Pope is Catholic, but he is the kind of Pope, rather, the kind of man, whose influence goes far beyond the scope of those who may lay claim to be his followers. Now, he has come to the end of his days and the whole world watches while his life ebbs away. Those, like myself, who appreciate what this truly great man has done to promote the freedom and dignity of all mankind and how he has, quite literally, changed the world for the better will miss him sorely. Like Reagan, Thatcher, Roosevelt and other greats of the twentieth century, there may never be another quite like him.

KJV vs. NIV?

I used to find it interesting, reading the opinions of those who throw aspersions on the King James Version of the Bible, but it’s become a little monotonous. The attempts to undermine the reliability of the KJV are always, at best, unreliable. It’s only mildly interesting to see someone who wants us to put more faith in their “scholarly” opinion than that of learned men who delivered the Bible that has impacted our world for the Kingdom of Christ more than any other book ever has or ever will.

I certainly wouldn’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings or discourage them from most any of the more modern translations, but it seems some feel the need to state their probems with the one book that I and millions of others prefer. So, I have no problem speaking my piece on the matter myself. As Christians, we should certainly know how to agree to disagree. If someone prefers another translation, they are more than welcome to go to it. I often enjoy different versions myself, but always come home to the tried and true.

While a man who speaks only Chinese might have a problem reading the KJV, a man with nominal intellect, a passable command of the English language and a decent Webster’s, would have little trouble understanding the KJV. (Webster, by the way, is indispensable to the Christian who sincerely desires to understand the Holy Scriptures.) As any Bible scholar who legitimately is versed in the various English translations of the scriptures will tell you, many others renderings, for example, the New International Version, are good for readability, but for accuracy in translation, no English language Bible is as accurate as the KJV. (So I was told by one of my professors at Tennessee Wesleyan College, who, incidentally was a Methodist pastor. I feel she had no reason, not being a KJV fan herself, to give me other than good information. I have heard the same repeated from other scholarly, less conservative sources, than myself.) If updated spelling and punctuation are the best arguments one has against the inherency of the KJV, then I’d say their arguments qualify as sadly weak.

The argument against accuracy wears a little old and is one of Satan’s favorites. If the KJV is unreliable even only in part, then, like a house of cards or the redemption for man it promises, it will fall under its own weight. After nearly four centuries and the salvation of millions of English speaking individuals, et al., it still saves and it still preaches. If doubt can be cast upon it, who would prefer to cast that doubt? The one who wants least for us to have scripture on which we can depend.

I am no “greek scholar” and my cursory glances at a Stong’s Exhaustive Concordance do not compare with the men who made Greek, Latin, Hebrew and Aramaic their life’s studies and were commissioned by the great sovereign, James, to translate the Bible, for the first time, into the language of the common man of the British isles. Some might think they took the King’s edict lightly and didn’t overly concern themselves with accuracy. Some might even think that God Himself took this golden opportunity lightly. Others might see the finger of God that left Elizabeth I barren, resulting in the accession to her throne by her cousin, James the VI of Scotland, (whom we know as James I of England.) A man who would otherwise have not had authority to give us the “Authorized Version” of the Bible.

I won’t play “my Bible is better than your Bible” with anyone. Most all translations have their place and merit and I thank God we have them. Neither should I stand by while someone tells me the same Bible that told me that “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son,” is just not trustworthy. In all honesty, if any translation of the Bible, or any book or any person for that matter has one untruth within, then who can truly know how much more is untruth. Aren’t we merely left with picking and choosing the parts that we like and dismissing those we do not? If we find ourselves attempting to win our point of view, not through the authority of scripture, but by undermining the authority of the scripture, should we not prayerfully search our hearts to determine exactly what is motivating us to do so?

Some say this is a dead horse and we shouldn't concern ourselves with one translation over the other; some say no Bible is completely dependable. I say, prayerfully choose, with God’s leadership, and you will choose wisely. Then find something in which you can place your unwavering faith. No, this “horse” is not dead. Thanks be to God, this “horse” will ride while the others are bucking their masters off and dropping them on the cold, hard ground. Remember the axiom: it’s alright to change horses in midstream as long as you get on a horse that’s going the same way.