So Nimm Denn Meine Hande...

Tuesday, November 28, 2006

The disclaimer post...

Okay. It's the Armchair Geek here. The Armchair Theologian...aka Armchair slacker is taking the next week (at least) off. After having a great thanksgiving week, he screwed around enough that he's now behind in school. So I'm stepping in and letting you all know that he'll be gone for the next 1-2 weeks or so.

So, you all can pray for discipline for my retarded alter ego as he tries to kick himself in the face to finish the semester strong and not fail anything...(like Hebrew...again)

What a weiner. Last thing he needs is to head back to Canada with his tail between his legs and a "d" on a transcript. He'll be back in a week or two. But no posting for now. Enough is enough; I'm pulling the plug and forcing him to get off his butt.

If anyone finds him commenting on blogs too, just erase his comments.

This blog blockade is in place until I announce otherwise. Thanks for all your support and continued prayers for that disorganized idiot.

Until Next Time,

The Armchair Mother Goose Geek

Monday, November 27, 2006

Good News!

Fattie Got Paid! Student loans finally came in!

YEAH BUDDY! Time to hit them pies and shed off them extra pounds!

Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theologian

Thursday, November 23, 2006

Something for those of us who feel like tapping out...

Yeah. A word of encouragement from Dr. David Jeremiah for all of you who are burned out from being in school for what seems like forever:

Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theologian

Tuesday, November 21, 2006

Consider the following...

On the heels of a recent comment I made to someone at church, I conducted a little research project. I went to the "major" bookstores of several world religions, on kinda a whim. This is what I found when I looked up apologetics in an online bookstore from:

The Mormons

The Jehovahs' Witnesses

The Scientologists

Christian Scientists

(Notice the interesting Buddhist Apologetic books! I also looked here)

Hindus (I also tried here and here and here...again, basically it's all Christian stuff!)

Islam (hmmm..interesting TWO titles...)

and finally Christianity. (813 hits? That's it?)

Now, why does anyone think that Christians are the only people aggressively defending their faith and religious beliefs?

Uh, maybe because Christianity is the only world religion aggressively attacked by skeptics. No other religion seems to try to mount a defense against hordes of rational attacks against the credibility of their religious book or the reasonability of every and all tenets of their faith.

Why do you think that is?

Here's some options:

1. Christians are the only people who are cocky and making claims to know things about origins, history, physical science, ultimate truth, etc. (But wait...Mormons, Muslims, Hindus, and especially Scientologists make large, if not excessive, clams in the same area! What gives?)

2. Christianity is more abbrassive that other world religions and people are retaliating against all it's evils, where as nobody hates all the other religions of love. (What, like Islam? Is that why thousands of people of other faiths get killed in moslem nations every year? History also records the story of the river of blood created by the OTHER war machine; Islam!)

3. Christians have some unneccesary need to "defend themselves" against perceived attacks that aren't really there. (we're making all this up.)

4. Christians try to force their religion on other people, therefore people want to attack them. (Again, Islam converts by the sword to this very day! Why are the skeptics not running after the Moslems, trying to rationally beat the faith out of their doubters?)

5. Christians constantly trumpet idiotic ideas. I mean, if God is so all good and all powerful, why do so many bad things happen? (Why don't moslems, or buddhists, or hindus get tossed these questions all the time? Hmmm?)

6. Western thought is dominated by Judeo-Christian influence and seeing that modernity/postmodernity came out of Judeo-Christian thought, it only stands to reason that the modernists/postmodernists would attack their philosophical grand-parents. (Hmmm, this one has some truth to it...)

7. Christianity is the only religious system that even offers answers to any hard questions beyond the "No man can know the paths of Karma!" or "who are you to question the most holy Allah?" sort of answers. Attacking Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism or anything else just isn't any fun because they refuse to 'play ball'. (I am sure all the skeptics have nothing better to do with their time...)

8. Christ really existed, what he said about himself and ultimate reality was true, and because the truth of that historical book about a historical person carries severe moral implications, it's best to destroy/attack/surpress the historical/rational credibility of said book so that one can pursue the immoral implications of one's own desires or cater to one's own desire for self-deification by embracing ones own home-made religious system.

Hmmm. I kinda lean toward the 8th point, but I guess that goes without saying. It is a definite curiosity though how no other world religion is worried about attempting to give a rational defense of their religious system. Any ideas from my esteemed readership?

Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theologian

Monday, November 20, 2006

Something really funny to me...

When I was in grade 12, I had a class called Western Civilizations with Ian Kluge, my teacher. He was a Bah'ai and the class should have been called Intro to why every religion is wrong except mine, although my religion somehow thinks that every religion is also somehow correct. Being a high school kid, I was cocky...cocky because I had learned exactly 2 things and thought that there was nothing else to learn.

As Mr. Kluge took stabs at every world religion, I kinda laughed and thought to myself "Ha! Suckers!". He made some good points and got me thinking, for as deep a puddle as I was at that time (think 1/2 inch, at best).

Then, he started taking on Christianity, but like most skeptics, he throttled attacks against Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons and Protestants with the same brush. Now I knew that I wasn't a Catholic, JW, or Mormon, and I let him know that it wasn't much of a problem to attack those sects because I didn't belong to them (and yes, I know that they're cults now).

So he decided to really light me up with some impossible to overcome attacks and gave me a book called 101 Contradictions in the Bible. I didn't know such books existed and was shocked at all the "obvious" contradictions that this book found. I spoke to some of my youth pastors, and they didn't really have much help to offer me. I pounded through a few of the questions and answered a few for myself, but I had to give him the book back and didn't get a chance properly refute all the "contradictions".


I recently found a PDF document of that book, and I opened it up this afternoon. 101 contradictions in the bible, eh? I'm a little more capable of sorting through all those problems now, and I was totally surprised at what I discovered.

101 contradictions lasted 13 minutes.

There were dozens of numerical "contradictions"; things like "so and so had 800,000 troops" verses "so and so had 1,800,000" troops. Now that I know Hebrew, I understand how a single point (like the dot on an "i") can change a number, and there are different ways of writing the same number. I won't bore with details, but around 40 of the contradictions were basically solved instantly.

There were literally 15+ on discrepancies within geneologies, but now that I understand that geneologies aren't closed listings but instead are designed to show lineage (not HOW many generations, but WHO the generations descend from), the "contradictions" within geneological lists (especially in Matthew 1 and Luke 3) are plain stupid.

Then the rest were built on hyper literalistic readings of scripture (reading with no concern for context, figures of speech, etc.) and over half were from the Old Testament.

Here's one example, "contradiction 64:

64.Is the Law of Moses useful?

(a) Yes. “All scripture is... profitable...” (2 Timothy 3:16)
(b) No. “ . . . A former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness... “(Hebrews 7:18)

Are Hebrews and 2 Timothy talking about even remotely the same thing, in the same way?

HA! No. Not even close.

I guess all this edumacation is paying off! Ha! It's funny though how people cling to "contradictions" in the bible, somehow thinking that minor errors in Masoretic vowel pointing, paragraph breaks, quotation marks, etc. somehow corrupt the Bible.

For an interesting look at an OLD debate I had with some Mennonite Pastors on this (like 2 years ago), consider this conversation that eventually bled over into this conversation. The title of "inerrancy case study" itself betrays my opponents lack of understanding of what "inerrancy" means. Here is a similar debate that arose here, on this very blog, in June. I cannot understand, for the life of me, how people want an errant, untrustworthy Bible and an incompetent, powerless, bumbling idiot of a God.

Oh wait. Romans 1 explains that. DOH! Until Next Time,


Saturday, November 18, 2006


I have a new, excellent, thought provoking post on The Theo Amigos! Check it out. (I'm also very biased about the quality of my own posting!)

Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theologian

Thursday, November 16, 2006

Some days I don't got it at all...

...But other days I'm ON FIRE! I was reading the blog of my best friends sister and hubbie and noticed something common. She had posted something regarding the 'gears' she gets when people ask her what she does and she has to kinda defend herself for being "JUST a mom". Well, I don't like that one bit. No sir. SO, I concocted a clever response that she can toss at people when they give her the gears again...not that she ever would. She's far too sweet and well mannered. Either way, it's wicked awesome in my head, and I'd love to hear someone say this JUST ONCE. Behold the following ficticious conversation:


Hmmm...Thinking of creative responses that you shouldn't say, but would want to...(HA HA!)

Snotty Career Gal: "I'm currently working at (whatever) where as my husband, Sven, works at (whatever). It's nice to have the dual incomes; makes payments on the Mercedes easier and we can still afford to take (son or daughter) away from prep school for several weeks in the Mauritius every summer. It's fantastic! So, what do YOU do?"

Sass-mouth Mom: "Well, I run a small business that has recently won a large, long term contract with what is currently an expanding multi-tiered, multi faceted new corporation in the local area. Currently, I'm doing research, design and project implementation for the first phase of the contract, working with a focus on "synergistic work and recreational space revitalization" for our base clientele, with side projects revolving around research in the fields of relational and conflict management, communication theory, office and recreational administration, nutrition, stress management and relaxation theory and generally holistic client health and wellness, with a dualistic project focus of both training and practical implementation. Soon, the company will be moving onto the second phase of the business operation and will be adding several other clients to our contractual base while concurrently expanding our portfolio to incorporate pharmaceutical, medical, culinary, educational, financial, janitorial, artistic and entertainment fields. Finally, the business plan will reach it's projected third stage, moving toward an end goal of having a core ensemble built around a corporate tri-fold vision of mental, physical and spiritual development which would in turn expand the business strategy to meet and ultimately surpass the long term operational success projections, culminating in biotic self replication of both core value and strategy and the establishment of new corporate centers in various cities in this, and possibly several other cities and countries."

Snotty Career Gal: “Holy Smokes! That sounds unbelievable! You must be one BUSY woman, what with running a huge business like that and everything! Wow!

Sass-mouth Mom: “Yeah! It’s not easy being a mom!”


Oh man! I don't know where some of my craziness comes from, but it's mostly good when it does! HA! I hope y'all enjoy the fruits of my sleep deprived brain! Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theologian!

Wednesday, November 15, 2006

Some thoughts for on Subordinationism (and marriage)...

Hmmm. I've had some questions come up regarding subordinationism and Jehovah's Witnesses, and instead of giving this response in a comment, I figured it would be a good post for the day (as I'm studying and too busy to write another post) Apparently some JW's comment that Jesus said that God the Father was greater than him, and understand that to be some sort of ontological statement of superiority (i.e. God the Father has 20% more divinity in his being than Christ did...though JW's don't really ascribe real deity to Christ in the first place.). Here's a look at the specific texts in question (structured for some of my favorite B-Bap ladies who seem to love bullet points! Good theology and serving the ladies! Two birds with one stone! YES!):

John 10:29 and John 14:28. First up is John 10:29:

- John 10:29 doesn't say "greater than I", but instead says "greater than all". I'm guessing some would say that "all" includes "Jesus".

- The thrust of 10:22-30 is the unbelief of the Pharisees regarding Christ's claims to deity. They ask the question in 10:24.

- Jesus says that he HAS told them that he is God, but they refused to pay heed because they "weren't his sheep".

- Then in 10:28 and 29 he gives a little paradoxical set of statements...

- Jesus said that he gives his sheep life and nobody can snatch them from his hand (28)

- Jesus then said that the Father has given them to him and nobody can snatch them out of the FATHER's hand.

- So the Pharisees would be thinking "which is it Jesus? Are they in YOUR hand or GOD the FATHER's hand?"

- And Jesus answers them in John 10:30 - "I and the Father are one."

- Their response in 10:31-33 shows that the Pharisees knew EXACTLY what he was getting at. They understood it, even if the JW's and others dont.

NOW, for John 14:28 -

- In John 14-17, Jesus is preparing for his coming suffering on the cross and giving some important revelation to his disciples.

- In John 14:1-4, Jesus says that he's going to the Father to prepare a place for the disciples.

- In John 14:5-14, Thomas and Philip misunderstand what Jesus said in 14:1-4 and ask him questions about how he's going to go to the Father.

- In John 14:15-31 Jesus gives some answers to their questions, though not as straightforward as they'd have liked.

- So, 14:28 seems pretty straightfoward. Jesus is telling the disciples to be glad that he's going to the Father, "for the Father is greater than I" (14:28). In the context of the passage, it would be a complete lateral shift for Christ to toss in an ontological peculiarity here. That would be like having a sentence in the middle of this post that said "Snakes don't have arms, that's why they don't wear vests". Totally out of place. What seems to make much more sense in the context is that Jesus is saying "don't be sad that I'm going to the Father; be happy! It's better for me to go to the Father than to stay here!"

- And as for 14:31, that verse doesn't insinuate subordination when it says "I do exactly what my Father has commanded me". It would if the first half of the verse were left off, but when you include the whole verse, it makes fine sense:

"...but the world must learn that I love the Father and that I do exactly what my Father has commanded me." (14:31)

Jesus didn't do what the Father commanded because he had to due to the fact that the Father would always win in an arm wrestle. Jesus did what the Father commanded because he loved him and therefore couldn't not do what the Father commanded. Jesus desired to please the Father because he loved him. No inferiority in love, and I'd illustrate that with God's favorite illustration of that: marriage.

Within real Christian marriages, there is an equality of essence while yet there still is a submission based on love, exactly as was shown in the relationship between God the Father and God the Son. The husband and the wife are equally saved by grace, and both positionally righteous before the Lord. BUT, there isn't some sort of spiritual androgeny. Just like the Son was God and still had submitted to his Father out of love, so wives are still believers and submit to their husbands out of love.

AND, just as the Father loved for the Son and lifted the Son up to be glorified in the highest place, so husbands after the Father's heart should lift up their wives in love and glorify them (not in the "worship" sense, but in the "extolling and edifying" sense). I'm sure that everyone is familiar with the Ephesians 5 commands for husbands and wives, as well as their relationship to Christ and the Church, (not to mention 1 Corinthians 11:3-16) but maybe some didn't see the connection between that and John 10:29 & 14:28.

Maybe some will now! If you're a married man, you're supposed to love the CRAP out of your wife...I'm guessing that would make her call to submission a tad easier!

I don't have a wife though, so I've got two MORE steps before that:

1. Find a Godly woman and date the CRAP out of her! (working on it!)

2. Take that Godly woman and marry the CRAP out of her! (I've always wanted to say to someone, "I'm fully gonna marry the CRAP out of you!" and see what they say. One day maybe?!)

3. Then, when she's my wife finally, I have to love the CRAP out of her (though that starts in stage 1).

(I guess I should apologize to anyone from the US who shows up here and is offended by my use of "crap". Apparently that's "foul language" in some parts of the US. That's not "foul language" where I come from...)

Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theologian


"David, wearing a linen ephod, danced before the LORD with all his might, while he and the entire house of Israel brought up the ark of the LORD with shouts and the sound of trumpets." - 2 Samuel 6:14-15

I don't know where the idea got into my head, but it's been a little heresy that was rambling around there for a long time. David never danced naked before the Lord. He was dressed in the priestly robes, and he was offering sacrifices! For some reason I've heard many of my charismatic friends comment on dancing in church, defending it by saying "David danced naked before the Lord". Now I'm going to respond "well, if you want to dance you've gotta offer sacrifices too!" HA! It's so funny to be sitting in class, read a verse you've read like 40 times before and all of a sudden realize what it says..."not naked". Hmmm. How many little heresies are rattling around in my empty head that I've never gone to the word to straighten out?

Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theologian

Monday, November 13, 2006

You Learn Something New Every DAY!

New Word: "ooparts". What does it mean?

"Ooparts" is short for "Out Of Place Artifact". And Oopart is an archeological find that is curious, questionable or downright destructive to the reigning paradigm. I just learned this word today and have been doing a ton of reading into antediluvian civilizations (civilizations that were around before Noahs flood).

Bascially, there's a whole ton of interesting and crazy technological marvels found in archeology that not a whole lot of people want to talk about. There's the Bagdad Battery, a 2,000 year old battery that Mythbusters (episode 29) actually found to work and give 4+ volts.

There's the 2,600 year old rock crystal lens (picture link at bottom) that insinuates that ancient cultures had a complex enough understanding of optics to produce corrective spectacles.

Theres the pyramids at Giza, (which aren't a total mystery but are an engineering marvel, even by modern standards) the various human remains and iron pots/cups/hammers found in coal deposits (which is a big problem since coal apparently predates even the dinosaurs), the various (literally dozens) 8-12 foot tall skeletons that have been found, etc.

It's all super interesting, but it's also all not exactly popular with mainstream archeology. There's not a lot of room for "advanced ancient cultures", and there's not a lot of answers to why cavemen apparently were grunting and smashing rocks together for millions of years and then, somewhere around 4,500+ years ago, emerged from their caves and, simultaneously all over the world, started building complex and advanced monuments, displaying very impressive feats of engineering.

How can one make sense of this?

Here's one option. This video clip gives a rational answer...well, not really. It's still entertaining.

I have another.
Around 4,500 years ago, several men emerged from an ark after a catastrophic flood. They had exceedingly advanced knowledge of much of the hard sciences and trades since they had a LOT of time to learn (The youngest of which lived to be at least 600 years old) and also, being much closer to the original, perfect man, would have had a more perfect genome with correspondingly superior cognitive faculties to modern, devolved man. (Oh yeah, and the culture that they came out of was they like learned stuff from before and remembered it when they left the ark!) These men would have taught their knowledge to their children, who also would have lived hundreds of years and learned rapidly. Beyond that, they would have lived (for a while), at that time there was a universal language which would have contributed to their efforts by making them able to work on monumental tasks with minimal communication problems. Eventually the benefits of common language, excellent genetics and extreme longevity would disappear, but for a time there was a technological explosion that was exponentially fueled by the existing knowledge that was past on by the 4 flood survivors. Is it possible?

Sure...if the Bible is true.

Does anyone believe that the Bible is true anymore?

I mean, what kinda question is that? Everyone knows that it's been like changed and editted and whatnot so many times that you cannot know what the original Bible said, and beyond that, it's just another book written by men. And it's so ignorant and intollerant of other faiths to even suggest that the Christian holy book is the only true holy book; like how ignorant is that? I thought "god" was supposed to be all about love, and then the Christians go off and start judging everyone and telling the whole world that "you're wrong and we're right"! How totally stupid!

Can anyone guess if I've ever heard those lines before?

Anyway, there's some good Oopart links here and some interesting, though kinda questionable, information here. Chase truth. Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theologian

Saturday, November 11, 2006

Some Other News...

Tomorrow, at Grace Community Church, Al Mohler is gonna be here with a big ole' bucket of burning coals. YEAH BABY! This will be the first time for me to hear Al Mohler IN PERSON. Until now it's all be MP3. Maybe I'll see if he wants to recruit me to Souther Baptist Theological Seminary! HA! Maybe if he gives me a good offer! I think I'll get me an ole' snap shot, if that's not TOO totally dorky. Anyway, I'm gonna need to wear huggies to church tomorrow. Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theologian

The fruits of an afternoon of work...

I wrote an explanation of the Trinity for a friend this afternoon who was trying to understand it enough to explain it to a friend of his who doesn't get it. Anyway, I hate doing HUGE projects like that becasue you're never satisfied with what you've got, but once you're done you can say "Hmmm. Maybe I can at least blog that and have a good post out of it!" HA! So here's some thoughts on Trinitarianism for y'all:


How would one explain the Trinity? Well, that’s a good question baby. In a nutshell, one has to look at the scriptures. The scriptures paint a significant picture, showing how the Father is God, the Son is God and the Spirit is God. The Scripture is exceedingly clear how Christ is God, and this one statement has a lot of textual evidence, with basically every attribute that is ascribed to God being ALSO ascribed to Christ:

Jesus is God of very God and he is deity in his very essence. (Col 1:19; Heb 1:3; John 8:58, 10:30). In being very God of very God, Jesus shares divine attributes with God. God is the creator of all things (Gen 1:31; Eph 3:9; Neh 9:6; Ps 102:25; Acts 14:15; Heb11:3), though Jesus is the creative agent of the Trinity (John 1:3; Col 1:16; Heb 1:2). God is everlasting (Ps 90:2,135:13; 2 Pe 3:8) and Christ is everlasting (John 1:1-2, 8:58; Heb 7:23-25). God is the sovereign and rules over all (1 Chr 29:12; 2 Chr 20:6; Ps 29:10, 47:2-3; Acts 17:24; Rev 19:6) while Christ will also rule over all, though his earthly reign has not yet commenced (Rev 1:5, 17:14, 19:16, 22:3; Heb 2:8). God is unchanging, nor can he change (James 1:17; Ps 102:27; Malachi 3:6) and Christ does not change (Heb 13:8). God is omnipresent (Deut 4:39; Isaiah 66:1; Ps 139:7-10; Prov 15:3) and yet Christ, in his divinity, is also omnipresent (Matt 18:20, 28:20. Col 3:11). God is omnipotent (Job 42:2; Is. 43:13; Matt 19:26) and yet Christ is also omnipotent (John 2:1-11, 2:19-22, 5:19, 11:43-44; Luke 7:14-15 Matt 8:26-27;Phil 3:20-21; Rev 1:8). God is omniscient (Job 31:4; Ps 147:5; Heb. 4:13; 1 John 3:20) and Christ also is omniscient (Mark 2:8; John 2:23-25, 6:64, 16:30, 21:27; Col 2:3; Rev 2:2-13, 3:1-15). God is the judge of the world (Ps 58:11; Ecc 3:17; Heb 12:23) and yet Christ will judge the world (Matt 25:31-46 John 5:22-23; Acts 10:42, 17:30-31; Rom 2:16; 2 Tim 4:1). God is faithful (Deut. 7:9; Prov. 36:5; 1 Cor.1:9; 1 Pet.4:19) and Christ is also faithful (2 Tim 2:13; Heb 10:23; Rev 19:11). God is holy (Ex. 15:11; Ps 99:9; Isaiah 6:3; Rev. 4:8, 15:4) and Christ is holy (Luke 1:35; Acts 3:14). God is righteous (Ezra 9:15; Ps 145:17) and Christ is righteous (1 John 2:1; Acts 3:14). God is true (John 17:3) and Christ is true (Rev 19:11). God is love (1 John 4:8) and Christ is the embodiment of the love of God (1 John 3:16; John 13:1; Rom 8:35-39; Eph 3:19). God is merciful (Ex. 34:6-7; Ps 86:5) and Christ is also full of mercy (James 5:11; Jude 21). God is the most high (Ps. 83:18; Acts 7:48) and Christ is exalted above everything (Phil 2:9). God is perfect (Matt 5:48) and Christ also is perfect (Heb 2:10, 5:9, 7:28). God is glorious (Ex.15:11; Ps 145:5) and Christ also is glorious (John 1:14, 17:5). God is compassionate (2 Ki 13:23) and Christ is also compassionate ( Matt 9:36, 14:14, 15:32, 20:34, 23:37; Mark 1:41; Luke 7:13; John 11:35).

That’s not the say that there isn’t sufficient textual evidence ascribing divine characteristics to the Holy Spirit. Many of those characteristics are spoken of in regard for the Spirit too. The Spirit is eternal (Heb. 9:14). The Spirit is omnipresent (Psalm 138:7-10). The Spirit is Holy (Rom. 1:4, Eph. 4:30). The Spirit is Love (Rom 5:5, Gal. 5:22, Col 1:8). The Spirit is omnipotent (:Luke 1:35; Acts 1:8, 2:1-4, 2:17-21, 4:31-33).

The spirit is also a person, like the Father and the Son. Scripture tells us that the Spirit has intellectual capacities (John 14:26, 15:26, 16:7, 16:13; 1 Cor. 2:10), feels emotion (Is. 63:10, Eph 4:30), communicates propositionally (Matt 10:20, John 16:13, 1 Cor 12:3) and has a will (Gen 6:3, Is. 63:10, 1 Cor. 12:11). The Spirit is called the paraclete in the scripture, which means “counselor” and is a personal title (John 14:16, 14:26, 15:26, 16:5)

The New Testament comments that in the Old Testament, when the Israelites were provoking God, they were provoking the Holy Spirit (Heb. 3:7-9). Beyond that, the Holy Spirit is often spoken of in the same breath with both God and Christ as being co‑equal with God and Christ (Mt. 28:19, Acts 5:34, 1 Cor. 12:4‑6, 2 Cor. 13:14).

So, what one is left with is a logical question. If the Father is God and the Son is God and the Spirit is God, but they’re all separate persons, what does a person do? Well, one either dismisses certain scriptures in the light of others or one becomes Trinitarian. The first 500 years of church history show how this development of Trinitarianism came about, but in a nutshell:

The Father is fully God.

The Son is fully God.

The Spirit is fully God.

None of them absorb or exclude the other

None of them dominate or subjugate the other

None of them are the derivation or source of the other

None of them is independent from the other

None of them are dependant on the other

The Triune God is a perfect being that is perfect in power, knowledge, wisdom, sensation, passion, love, will and morale purity. “Who is like the LORD our God, the One who sits enthroned on high?” (Psalm 113:5).

One phrase has been used – three persons of one essence.

The Trinity is one essence; one substance that is made up of three separate beings, three persons.

Beyond that, there’s a few difficult to overcome logical oppositions to any sort of non-Trinitarian positions:

1. If God is not triune, then he cannot be love. If God is completely perfect in himself, and needs nothing from man, then before he had created man, he would have needed someone to be loving to. If there wasn’t anyone for him to love (as in the other persons in the trinity), then God is flawed and needs man (or something in creation) in order to be loving. If God requires anything or anyone for either existence or expression of any of his moral characteristics, he’s neither perfect nor holy.

2. If Jesus wasn’t God, then he didn’t have authority to forgive sins (that belongs to God the Father, and the Pharisees well knew that, which is one of the things that so shocked them about Christ. Matthew 9:1-8, Mark 2:1-12 and Luke 5:17-26 give the account of the event I’m referring to.)…

3. If the Spirit isn’t God, then he cannot perfectly reveal the Father to mankind (he wouldn’t have perfect knowledge of the Father and could, albeit infinitesimally small, be mistaken in his knowledge of the Father. I.E. the Spirit could lie about God out of ignorance. 1 Corinthians 2:11-16 comments on this as well as John 16:12-15.).

4. If the Spirit is somehow not God, then God uses a flawed intermediary in the economy of Salvation. If the Holy Spirit convicts of sin, grants understanding and faith, and renews the mind, and somehow is not “the very God of very God”, God is using a less than perfect intermediary for his project of salvation, and thereby chancing his own glory on some else’s incompetence. Salvation is certain (100% and not 99.9999999999%), only and exclusively if the Spirit is God. (If there’s even the most remote shred of doubt in the economy of salvation, Romans 8:29-39 is using definitive language incorrectly; it is lying. Beyond that, Eph 1:13-14 say that the Spirit is a guarantee of our future inheritance. If there is a shred of doubt, even infinitesimally, then there’s really no guarantee.).

I don’t use analogies with the Trinity to describe it, as every analogy falls short. I recommend simply to give a person the tension of scripture and every time they attempt to logically leap around the scripture into some form of subordinational relationship or historical heresy, or any other simplistic systemization, shut them down. I’m sorry if this isn’t the “magic explanation”, but the Trinity is definitely the most difficult piece of doctrine to get your thumb on.


Enjoy thinking huge thoughts. Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theologian

Wednesday, November 08, 2006

Why I'm never wanting to be in a Medeival Rap Video...

I am not chivalrous, nor do I ever try to be.

That's right ladies. I said it.


Now, before I get beaten to death, I probably should explain why I have a distaste for the word "chivalry".

Craver recently put up something about Chivalry, and I agree with him.

Men should treat every woman like a princess, or a beloved mother, or a favorite sister. Men should open doors, initiate the "DTR" ("Define the Relationship" talk), offer their arms on ice, defend any woman in peril, let women sneak into grocery lines, offer to carry them women over large puddles (unless they have a jacket to lay down), protect, serve, and in all questions of conduct, do whatever they can to let them know that they are precious. So Craver is right, and I wholeheartedly agree. Anyone who doubts me has never met my mother. (I know the proper way to kiss a maiden's hand...WRITE THIS DOWN FELLAS: You grasp the hand with your thumb on top, and then kiss your thumb, not the maiden's hand. Only a classless boor would lay his filthy lips on the fair hand of a beautiful maiden, probably getting dirt and grime on her gloves! Sheesh!)

So best recognize that I definitely am in the "lift up the ladies" club...

...but that's NOT chivalry. No ma'am.

When we think of chivalry, we think of "social conduct" and such; ways of treating a maiden. Unfourtunately, that's what Chivalry became, but not even remotely close to what it originally was. The following can be found here:

"Chivalry" comes from the French word for "knight" (chevalier), and was the professional soldier of the time (around the time of the crusades, and even earlier). "Chivalry" was the code of conduct of the professional cavalry soldier, and it had nothing to do with the ladies.

Medieval knights fought on behalf of the church and God, and were even granted special privledges such as the remission of all penances, dispensation from the jurisdiction of the secular courts, and as a means of defraying the expenses of the journey to the Holy Land, knights were granted the tenth of all the church revenues.

After the era of the crusades, knighthood reached it's highest and most noble time. Being a knight was similar to being in a monastic order, and "Chivalry" was seen as a fusion of the religious and military; the ideal "man'. Chivalry was still about the maxims of honour and courtesy, but the term encapsulated the idea of ideal "knighthood".

After the Crusades chivalry gradually lost its religious aspect. Around this time, "Chivalry" became the peculiar worship of knighthood. Love, neither God or the Church, became the mainspring of chivalry. As a consequence there arose a new type of Chevalier, vowed to the service of some noble lady, who could even be another man's wife. This idol of his heart was to be worshipped at a distance. Unfortunately, notwithstanding the obligations imposed upon the knightly lover, these extravagant fancies often led to lamentable results.

This is the period of chivalry that we associate with the word "Chivalry". In the third age of Chevalier, we see the romantic knight who fights on behalf of the noblewoman with a sword in one hand, a rose in the other and poetry spouting from his mouth whilst he rides an unspotted white horse across a field of daisies. Unfortunately, this concept of "Chivalry = code of conduct on how to swoon the ladies fans" is essentially the medieval version of being a "playa".

"Chivalry" became a code of conduct for "scoring with the chicks". That's where all the romantic, mushy, excessive etiquette stuff comes from. Knights didn't open the doors for the ladies out of anything short a desire to impress the ladies (not that any knight would open a door...that's what servants are for! DUH!) and thereby get "all up ins". In another word, Chivalry was a drawn out medieval equivalent of "candy is dandy but liquor is quicker"...just with a few dozen more rules (and less rhyming..again my fascination with rap comes out).

I don't want to use "etiquette" as a tool to weasel my way into a fair maidens arms, heart, or God forbid, bed. I don't want to allure women with romanticism or my inner "warrior poet". I definitely don't want married women getting swooned by my immaculate table manners, my ability to spontaneously spout obscure poetry in perfect pentameter (i.e. freestyle rap), my ability to play their favorite song on any of 47 instruments or my ability to save them from a flat tire without ever messing my hair. (and I cannot do any of those

Feel free to call me what you will, but PLEASE don't call me Chivalrous. Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theologian.

Weird Thought...

Man. As I was driving home from class today, I started thinking (as is usually the case). I've been in school, either part or full time, for 22.5 years as of December. I've spent close to $100,000 on education, and by a tremendous work of God's providence I'm debt free, though at 29 I'm finishing the first year of my MDiv. Well, what's a little tadpole to do? Either rack up $180,000 in debt and go into ministry, or rack up $80,000 in debt by schooling in the US and then still going into ministry. Man! Craziness!

Beyond that, I've lived in 18 different places over the course of that schooling, though much of that was relocating for summer work during my college years. (Though I'm counting moves to different addresses. I've "lived" in 6 different cities, 7 counting Burbank) My place in Burbank is the 19th place I've lived. Hopefully I'll get to stay here for MORE than a year, but I'm guessing I won't be living in this place for much more than 2-2.5 years. Once I'm done my school, I'm gone again; heading back to Canada, most likely Saskatchewan or Alberta. Well, that is unless something happens in the meantime, like being in a coma for a decade. Either way, life is sure crazy. I can't wait to live at one address for more than 1 year, which is my current record.

Oh, and thanks to all the people who've helped me move over the years! (Kurt Buchanan, Adam Staniowski, Ben Ward, Cam Brodzki, Ben Renoylds, Jeff Nicklefork, Chad Graham, Dave Palmer, Curtis Jurgens, and some others that I forget) One day I'll have a home that you can all come over to for a meatfest! YES! Just some mid-afternoon thoughts. If this moving around continues for another 10 years, I'll honestly feel like Israel! Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theologian

Wednesday, November 01, 2006

I'm going to get in SO much trouble for this...

...But it's a risk I'm willing to take. I'm slamming through Leonard Verduin's "The Reformers and their stepchildren" right now. I was reading and came across the quote to end all quotes. In the 5th chapter there is a long section talking about how medieval and reformational heretics (Waldensians, aong others) used to meet in house churches. Apparently they were so sneaky and covered their tracks so well that the clerics had to make up stories to explain to their bishops why they couldn't find and get rid of these "house churches" (though they apparently met everywhere but in people's houses!). Here's the excuse given by the Dean of Notre Dame at Arras as to why he couldn't round up these elusive heretics, and a little account of what happened at their ungodly services (although I don't know how he got the information, seeing that he admittedly couldn't find them for the life of him!):

When the Waldensians wish to go to their conventicle they first rub an ointment on their palms…as well as on a stick, an ointment supplied to them by the devil. Then they straddle this stick and fly to whatever place they wish to go, over cities and forests and lakes…They congregate about the tables decked with wine and bread. Devils in the form of billy-goats, or dogs or apes are present; sometimes in the form of a man…They worship these, kissing the billy-goat’s derriere, with candles in their hands…Then they tread on the cross, spitting on it despite of Jesus Christ and the holy Trinity. Then they present their buttocks to the sky, in derision of God…” - pg 175. (italics in original quote)

So, does that sound bizarre or what? Fly to church on a broom, have communion, kiss a goat's butt, clog dance and spit on the cross, then drop your drawers and moon the sky. Sounds like quite the sensual pagan ritual!

Come to think of it, I think I once went to that was called "The Gathering" or something, if memory serves me correctly...hmmm. I could be mistaken. Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theologian.

P.S. - "Present their buttocks to the sky"? Oh man. I'm going to be laughing at that for freaking weeks!