So Nimm Denn Meine Hande...

Wednesday, September 27, 2006

If one post is good...

...then TWO posts are better! I originally posted this on my *other* blog, but seeing as I just got a publication deal with Banner of Truth Trust, I figured that I'd post it here too. Coming to a bookstore near you (and probably immediately to a corresponding bargain bin shortly after)

You all remember Dan Brown's theological classic "The Davinci Code"? Well, I've got something new that combines a more conservative, "Left Behind" view of scripture (well, kinda) with the science of "Jurassic Park". "Oh it comes" is probably what you're thinking, and rightly so. HA!

So today, in an anonymous class, we were hammering through some issues in Exodus, specifically some of the issues regarding the plagues of Egypt. And I got thinking again. Oh dear.

So we were talking about the plagues, that they occured exactly in the way that the Bible gives account, right? When Exodus says that the "Nile turned to blood" and whatnot, it actually turned into real blood (and if anyone wants to debate this stuff, feel free. I will STILL respond via freestyle rap though). Anyway, what does blood have in it but hemoglobin, t-cells, etc. and DNA. So how does this relate to the Exodus? Well, that's where my new Christian fiction novel would take over.

Imagine some biblical archeologist finds pot with blood in it (or in a bucket...or whatever. I'll sort out the fact later). Anyway, through some sort of realistic sounding archeological 'pot dating' mumbo-jumbo the archeologist says "Eureka! This jar is most likely from the time of the exodus, so this blood must be blood from the first plague!" (or something along those lines)

Then, he takes the blood from the pot into the lab and gives it to a hematologist or some sort of professor Fink character who then says "Dave (my archeologist), this blood has DNA in it!" Then, against government mandates and in an illegal underground lab, they make a clone from the DNA in the blood from the first plague! So, who do they find in the cloning chamber when the clone comes full term and comes to life? I'm open to ideas. I'm currently thinking:

1. Jesus.
2. Moses.
3. Aaron.
4. Adam.
5. Eve
6. Melchizedek
7. A Tyrannasaurus
8. Pharaoh himself!
9. The Rock (playing the role of a Nephilim)
10. Creflo Dollar
11. John MacArthur (HA!)
12. Colonel Saunders (Who also turns out to be Melchizedek...I'd think that would be the funniest.)
13. The Angel Gabriel (probably also played by the Rock)

Any other good ideas? I like the idea of it being God's DNA (it's a religious fiction novel...shut up you!), and the blood from the nile ends up matching a sample taken from the shroud of turin, leading to this massive conspiracy that is covered up by the Catholic Church to prove that Jesus WAS God. "But why would the Catholics cover THAT up?" For that you'll have to read the book. Sounds like a real page turner! Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theologian

P.S. - Religious Fiction Novel.

P.P.S. - Sometime this weekend we'll return to our regularly scheduled posts. I had a Bible study retreat last weekend and it was great, but I kinda got behind on homework and whatnot. Also, I've been spending too much time on one other blog, (pulpit Magazine Blog...good blog though) but I am going to shift gears and work on finishing my cessationism posts before Christmas. THAT is something that I might actually look at publishing! HA!

Friday, September 22, 2006

With a skip and a hop...

...and a little Photoshop, I'm on the bandwagon. I'm no Phil Johnson (and his Pyromaniacs pictures are amazing), but I'll get better at digital editing sometime between now and the trumpet blast. Anyway, this is my take on the "Jonathan Edwards is my homeboy" goofiness. I definitely see the humor, though I also don't like the trend of trivializing the momentous by throwing them on a t-shirt and adding "... is my homeboy". I mean, Edwards was one of the greatest theologians of the past 300 years and his writings have seriously changed my life. I'm not comfortable taking him in jest (or I shouldn't). That's like slapping John MacArthur a high-five after a good sermon and saying "way to let 'er rip, Pastor!" COMPLETELY inappropriate...

So I propose that instead that someone make shirts that trivialize people who are already trivial. Then, as I see it, no harm done! Consider the following coming to fall fashions near you:


How about one for the ladies?

Then again, if we're trivializing trivial folks, why beat around the bush?

So does anyone see a Christian clothing contract in my future? Yeah. Me neither.

Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theologian

Wednesday, September 20, 2006

My Personal Add...

Yeah. I was recently thinking of putting a joke personal add on some "Christian singles" site. Here's what I wrote:

"Unemployed ex-slave gone slave (purchased by new master), recently brought back from the dead, adopted into a royal family of several million siblings, possessionless but has an infinite inheritance coming, currently living in a dive but soon moving into a house of solid gold, often speaks to an invisible friend that invented the water (among other things), currently spending tens of thousands of dollars per year training for a job that will most likely pay ten thousand dollars a year, recently became immortal, regularly eats flesh and drinks blood in a ceremony involving thousands of people, believes the earth is 6,000 years old and the Grand Canyon was formed in a few months, constantly fights with demons by folding hands and reciting a 2,000 year old religious text, hopes to eventually get married to God but currently seeking to emulate a resurrected Jewish carpenter who was born but never conceived, seeking like minded woman for loving relationship. Please direct all inquiries to 818-558-xxxx"

I'm not sure though. Does that accurately describe me? I should probably throw something in about cessationism, just to be sure! HA! And can you imagine what would happen if I put that on a NON-Christian 'singles' site? OH MAN! I'd have some crazy witches wanting to talk about "what it's like to be immortal" or some crazy Luciferians (not Lutherans) wanting come to the 'flesh eating ceremony'! HA! HA!

Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theologian

Monday, September 18, 2006

My stupid poem...

Here's something that's either clever or artistically offensive...depends on how much you know about poetry (and I know basically nothing! LOL!). Either way, I was attempting to encapsulate my position on the creationism debate regarding the nature of "evidence". What I often say is:

"It’s not about which side has more ‘evidence’.

It’s ALL about properly interpreting the data through the authoritative lens of scripture."

So I was trying to think of a snappier way to say that. I ended up with this:


It’s not as though a billion minds, all functioning in sin,
Could somehow unlock heaven’s doors and dare to peek therein.
Or that a scholar with his trowel out sifting through the soil
Could see the truth through nothing less than through sheer weight of toil.
For sin has killed and corrupted man’s reason, faith and sight
So that, though staring at the facts, they’re ne’er perceived aright.
The carnal man is dead in sin, he can’t tell truth from lies.
He must be brought from death to life and given seeing eyes!

For facts aren’t truly understood until they are aligned
And placed within the context of God’s perfect, holy mind.
Where is this mind? Where should one go that one may understand
The facts about the apple that is grasped within the hand?
Or that one may know thoughts divine, thoughts greater than one’s own?
The ponderings of him who sits above upon the throne?
I tell you sir that God has unveiled, by prophetic pen,
His mind within the holy scriptures given unto men.

In that scripture we learn of man’s creation and fall,
And how Christ’s death upon the cross provides now for us all
A way to triumph over sin and then, our minds renew
So we can have faith in God’s word and discern what is true!
Hence if one seeks to comprehend the world one lives within,
To turn ‘facts’ into ‘evidence’, one needs to deal with sin!
It’s not sheer facts that harmonize the science/faith discord,
but whether one sees facts through eyes submitting to the Lord.

WAIT a minute...Let's change that last couplet. It's NOT a "science/faith discord", it's a question about the authority of scripture and doing 'biblical' versus 'non-biblical' science. DOH! Hmmm...let's reword that:

"It's not sheer facts that parry evolution's swinging sword,
but whether one sees facts through eyes submitting to the Lord"

That sounds a bit better.

Any English majors or MDiv's want to light me on fire after that? Maybe I should leave this blog and write for Hallmark. LoL. Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theologian

Sunday, September 17, 2006

A few notes:

Yeah, here's a few notes on places you need to scope out:

A- Pastor John MacArthur has a blog. It's been pounding through the topic of creationism for the last week, and I've been jumping on board there a bit. In case you missed the link on my sidebar (and I need to do some, uh, housekeeping with my, go HERE to check it out. All you Toon Towners need to check it out.

B - The Theophorist has a new blog, now that he's back from his time working in Korea. He's always got something to say worth reading, and that reading can be done here.

C - The dynamic duo of Colorature Christian and Cowboyology have teamed up for a husband and wife Double Deuce called Blessed Union. Once, a long time ago, I helped teach her to drive. Now, a few years later (or is it decades?), they're both teaching me how to live. From what I hear, things are going amazing in that tiny church in Blackie, Alberta! (I think I've seen that website before too...but I wish there were more than three churches in Alberta with that kinda content!)

F - Yeah. F. In the game of life, some people recently scored on their own net. A few individuals, who hate truth SO much that they have to lash out at it with violence, MAY have hacked and crashed 4Ever4Given's blog...either way, it was dead for a few days but now it's back up. PTL!

Okay. I'm off to bed. Morning comes early and I need my beauty sleep...well, I need my sleep! HA! Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theologian

PS - This is my first time doing a 'weekly blogspot' or whatever. I don't know how I'm supposed to do this, so how did I do? HA!

Saturday, September 16, 2006

The Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch

There has been a question raised about the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. So, to prevent any doubt, I figured I'd throw this on the main page and not somewhere hidden away in the comments. Here is why I believe that Moses wrote the Pentateuch:

1. Who does the Torah ascribe the authorship of the Torah to?


- “Moses wrote all the words of Jehovah” (Exodus 24:4).

- “Jehovah said unto Moses, ‘Write thou these words...’ ” (Exodus 34:27).

- “Moses wrote their goings out according to their journeys by the commandment of Jehovah” (Numbers 33:2).

- “Moses wrote this law and delivered it unto the priests...” (Deuteronomy 31:9).

o (So, during the Israelites’ time in the wilderness, Moses was writing down, in a book, their history and the revelations of God.)

2. Who does the Old Testament ascribe the authorship of the Torah to?


- “Be strong and very courageous. Be careful to obey all the law my servant Moses gave you; do not turn from it to the right or to the left, that you may be successful wherever you go. Do not let this Book of the Law depart from your mouth; meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do everything written in it.” (Joshua 1:7-8)

- “There, in the presence of the Israelites, Joshua copied on stones the law of Moses, which he had written” (Joshua 8:32)

- “Hilkiah the priest found the Book of the law of Jehovah given by Moses” (2 Chronicles 34:14)

- “And they installed the priests in their divisions and the Levites in their groups for the service of God at Jerusalem, according to what is written in the Book of Moses.” (Ezra 6:18)

- “…Therefore the curses and sworn judgments written in the Law of Moses, the servant of God, have been poured out on us, because we have sinned against you.” (Daniel 9:11)

- "Remember the law of my servant Moses, the decrees and laws I gave him at Horeb for all Israel.” (Malachi 4:4)

o (By the time Moses had died, Joshua had a book that Moses had given him. Joshua made copies of said book and Joshua occasionally added to that book [Joshua 24:26]. The book that was written and passed down from Moses became known as the Torah, or the Pentateuch.)

3. Who does Jesus Christ ascribe the authorship of the Torah to?


- “And beginning from Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself” (Luke 24:27)

- “For if ye believed Moses, ye would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?” (John 5:46-47)

o (Jesus consistently quotes “the law of Moses” as well, with absolutely no hint of doubt in either its authorship or authority. Nobody challenged Jesus’ understandings of the authorship of the Torah either.)

4. Who do the Apostles ascribe the authorship of the Torah to?


- “The law was given through Moses” (John 1:17)

- “For Moses writes about the righteousness which is of the law, ‘The man who does those things shall live by them’ ” (Romans 10:5)

- “Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts.” (2 Corinthians 3:15)

- “For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.” (Acts 15:21)

o (Every Apostle, and all their detractors, consistently show a total confidence in the Mosaic authorship of the Pentaetuch; they quote it in a ‘matter of fact’ way, with no hint of authorial doubt. Beyond that, calling the Torah “Moses” is like talking about reading “Shakespeare”. It’s assumed that when one talks of “Shakespeare”, one is referring to his writings. Common figure of speech in both ancient and modern times.)

5. Who did the Pharisees and Sadducees ascribe the authorship of the Torah to?


- “Teacher, Moses wrote unto us, if a man’s brother die, and leave a wife behind him, and leave no child, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother” (Mark 12:19)

- Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" "What did Moses command you?" he replied. They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away." "It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. (Mark 10:2-5)

- Has not Moses given you the law? Yet not one of you keeps the law. Why are you trying to kill me?" (John 17:19) (Notice how none of Jesus’ opponents deny that question for it was a rhetorical question that everyone assumed!)

o (Essentially, everyone in the Bible assumed that Moses wrote the Pentateuch because, well, it appears that they actually believed that he did, and with good reason. It’s the consistent testimony of the entire Old Testament and is one thing that, to my knowledge, is uncontested for at least a thousand years after the death of Christ. When Christ quotes the Torah and says “Moses wrote”, not a single detractor of Christ’s replies “Woah! Woah! Woah! Hang on there! Let’s not assume this Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch! I believe that’s an archaic theory that has been overthrown by Hebraic Scholarship.” Not even close. Everyone in Jesus’ day assumed the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch)

So yeah…Moses wrote Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. It’s fairly clear from scripture and pretty hard to get around, though some people still question it. Then again, one can find people out there who doubt anything…I once found a webpage of some mathematician who believed that he lived in a space-time where there were 26 hours in a day and he had a few hundred pages of equations to show how he could go from ‘our’ universe of 24 hour days into ‘his’ universe. Unfortunately, the math was only a proof; the actual traveling to the other universe could only be done by him for reasons of some sort of cosmic, royal bloodline. HA! Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theologian

A Little Rant About Dawson...

...I'm sitting here, catching up on the news from Dawson College in Montreal. It's amazing how everyone is jumping on the "increase gun control!" bandwagon! Somehow, all the experts think that the problem is with law abiding individuals. Since when does gun registration stop criminals from getting guns? I mean, criminals don't obey the law in the first place! Sheesh! Good job CTV. Making guns completely illegal for law abiding citizens will most likely stop wait. Criminals already have guns, or get them illegally in the first place. Man alive.

Beyond the silly gun control talk, the media (that I've watched, at least) sounds just like it did at Columbine; all trying to figure out why he shot up a school. Everything has been said: Kimveer Gill was a goth, he was depressed, he played video games, he listened to heavy metal, etc. It was the TV's fault. It was music's fault. It's the fault of the people who saw the pictures of him with a gun on his blog and didn't tell the police. It's the fault of his struggles with depression.

Come on! Maybe it was Kimveer Gill's fault for staring people down the barrel of a gun and pulling the trigger? Maybe he was a wicked person who did wicked things because he was a wicked person? Why is that so hard for people to even suggest? Well, I know why. I guess that question was rhetorical. The minute one uses "moral language" in regards to an action, that insinuates a concrete moral standard from which the action fell short...and we cannot have that. That sounds like having some form of absolute!?! NEVER! Oh what a tangled web we weave...Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theologian

Tuesday, September 12, 2006

Ha...I'm plagarising myself!

I wrote this and posted it somewhere else tonight, but since I was typing for like and hour, I figured I'd throw it on my blog as my first new post, now that I have the internet. I was answering the question of whether or not Evolutionists can have faith or not when the person who wrote the post stated that Evolution could not be reconciled with faith in God. Here's more of my idiotic ramblings:


Hmm. Reading these comments is definitely interesting. In no place is the rational dichotomy between the Christian and the non-Christian so pronounced as when talking about the origins debate.

It is an interesting question that Simon raises. If Evolution is some sort of attack against the Christian God (and the Bible he wrote), then how WOULD one explain how so many Evolutionists have faith?

To answer that, one would need to define "faith". But, in order to do that, we'd have to settle on a common authority for our definition. As a Christian, I would want to derive that definition from God, the source of all truth. The way I would derive that definition from God is to see what he's said about it in his self revelation: the Bible. I'd want to know if God said anything along the lines of defining "faith", and if he did, I would seek to align my understandings to God's position on the issue; which is ultimate, objective and authoritative truth.

It's at this juncture that the non-Christian (or possibly the person who calls himself "Christian" but doesn't uphold the authority or relevance of the Bible) would raise his voice in objection and ask, "Why the Bible?" or "Why YOUR Bible?" You can see how the argument inevitably ends up being a debate on the nature of the scripture.

By definition, a Christian loves God and must, if they love God, obey the Bible for that is the very teaching of the Bible itself. 1 John 5:1-5 and John 14:23-24 are two passages that explicitly teach this, among many others (but I'm not here to write a book. If anyone wants to talk about any passage I present, feel free to bring it up).

Beyond obeying it, one must understand that is the only authority on all matters of truth, eclipsing even one's personal experience. In 2 Peter 1:17-21, Peter presents that that the Bible exceeds his own dynamic personal experience of seeing Jesus in his glorified state (if only for a moment), and this is so because God wrote the Bible; it's divinely authored.

And because it's divinely authored, it's true. True in the sense of Cartesian certainty; 100% correct, not 99.44%. God isn't just smarter than me, he's smarter than mankind as a whole. That would be part of being a creator; in the procedure of designing, constructing and maintaining something complex (like an X-Ray machine) I, the creator of said item, would have to understand how I designed and built and maintain it. And, if God is the designer, creator and sustainer of everything that is (including things like language, though, mathematics, etc.), then God has perfect knowledge of those things and the creatures that utilize them. God isn't just smarter than me, he's smarter than mankind as a whole, over the entirety of history. The Bible states this explicitly when, in 1 Corinthians 1:25, it says:

"For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength."

Even the stupidest thing God has ever done is smarter than the ultimate wisdom of all humanity, period.

So, if I have an authoritative revelation of God on an issue, I have certainty on the issue.

This brings us back to the question:

“How do you explain so many evolutionists having faith?”

If I'm seeking to stand on firm, objective, revealed truth, I am slapped in the face with only one answer.

Evolutionists cannot, by biblical testimony, have faith.

One might contest, saying, “Uh, what? They sure as heck seem to claim to be Christians! They believe in Jesus, read the Bible, go to church, pray, etc. Who are YOU to say that they DON'T have faith?”

Well, I’m nobody to say anything. Good thing it's not my idea. That's the great thing about being a Christian. I don't have a whole lot of original ideas (or any, for that matter); God told me what faith is and I’d only dare suggest that God is correct.

So one says,"Okay. What did GOD tell you faith is?"

For that, I could type a few thousand pages, but I'll stick with one pretty good passage (again, if anyone wants, I'll show this from any of a few dozen other passages in the Bible. I only pick one to stop this from turning into a book!); Romans 4:1-12.

Romans 4 is commenting on how Abraham was made righteous by God, and in the midst of the argument is what I'd suggest to be a great little definition of "faith".

In verse 3 of Romans 4, Paul quotes Genesis 15:6 when he writes:

"What does the Scripture say? ‘Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness’."

Then, in verse 9, Paul rephrases his quotation and says "We have been saying that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness."

Now where in here do I get a definition of "faith"?

Well, in the 3rd verse it says "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."

So what is the "it" that was credited to him as righteousness?

"Abraham believed God..."

Believed God about WHAT?

If you look back in Genesis, you see that in 15:4-5, God promises Abraham a son (who we learn later to be Isaac).

So God made a promise and Abraham believed him.

Now, jumping back to Romans, Paul restates his quotation and says "...Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness..."

Instead of saying "it" or "believed God", Paul says "faith". I would suggest that Paul saw "believing God's promise" and "faith" as synonymous.

So, IF "faith" is "believing God" (or what God says), then do Evolutionists have a biblical definition of "faith"? Do they believe what God says about the origin of life?

Does not God comment in plain language that he created the Earth in 6, 24 hour periods, a few thousand years ago (not a few billion). Do Evolutionists believe God’s testimony or do they toss out the ONLY account of the event from the ONLY living eye-witness in a search for a more "scientifically reasonable" explanation?

I don't know about you, but I would suspect that if there was a car accident in Tokyo and I, who saw nothing of the accident, showed up and attempted to argue about what happened with an eye-witness, one may think MY efforts were absurd.

Does it strike you as strange how so many people with PhD's can do EXACTLY that and wonder how anyone could ever disagree with them?


Yeah. It's good to be back. For the record, I'm going to be kinda scarce as blogging takes up SO much time. Either way, I hope some of you enjoy the post and are prodded to ponder. Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theologian