Reflections from a Rogue Brain...

Transitions and the like...

2009-03-18T20:43:00.000-07:00

Okay...Much like everyone and their dog, I'm now apparently writing on Wordpress.

Come over here for the "next time"!

I may still post something here from time to time, but most likely I'll get on Wordpress and stay there.

God bless my 4 readers from the last 5 years! LOL!

Longing For the Day,

Lyndon "The Armchair Theologian" Unger

Sickly and Reflecting...

2009-03-17T16:50:00.000-07:00

I'm home sick from seminary today, and I am basically bed ridden, with occasional mad-dashes to the washroom...

...Seeing that I'm basically lying on the couch waiting for my various infections to heal up, I've been pondering some thoughts about the future. I've been listening to The Dividing Line webcast a fair bit, and going back to reading a bit on Mormonism, as well as apologetics. I've got 1 more year left on my MDiv and then I'm done school, unless I seek a ThM somewhere (or skip to PhD), but I've realized that I haven't really found a direction to focus my study. What I mean is that I've been writing about a variety of topics (though not here), for many things peek my interest, but I haven't found myself getting "into" anything fully...

...I have wanted to continue writing some stuff on cessationism, and Mormonism, and Catholicism, and Apologetics, and Premillenialism (which I'm admittedly only beginning to study), and textual criticism (which is more interesting that I thought it would be), counseling, youth ministry (which I think severely needs some half-brained content added to it's Evangelical corpus) and so on, but seminary and marriage demand almost all of my time these days. In a year, I'll be freed up from the humongous shackles of school (for really the first time in 25+ years) to finally pastor and pursue whatever writing/apologetic/pastoral ministry I desire, and I'm not sure what I want to do! Oh the misery of choice!

If I do a ThM, I'll have to pick an area of specialization and begin research. Same thing goes for a PhD.

If I begin a writing ministry, I'll have to start working in a direction (apologetics, cults, cessationism, eschatology, etc.) and start really sharpening my knowledge and interaction with whatever field. Either way, I know I'll be involved in a church and I also know that I will have to find a secondary outlet for all my learning (not bragging, but I've got a slight bit more theological and biblical education than your average lay-person). What to do? Where to go?

This probably sounds super arrogant...doh! Oh well. I haven't posted here since before Apple stocks plummeted, so I don't think I have any readers anymore. Either way, just thinking on the old blog.

Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theologian

Brad Jersak's Argument for Listening Prayer...

2008-11-20T13:44:00.000-08:00

The biblical argument for listening prayer from the book “Can You Hear Me”

(This post was originally put up on Facebook and has been re-posted here for a curious individual)

Up front, I must anticipate and answer the “why do you attack Brad Jersak” questions that are inevitable. If a person sees a loved one/brother doing something unwise, dangerous or outright sinful, there is a biblical imperative to attempt to come alongside them in love and attempt to call them to alertness to their situation, as well as lovingly call them to repentance.

Luke 17:3 instructs: “So watch yourselves. If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him.”

Galatians 6:1-2 states: “Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. Carry each other's burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ.”

Paul wrote to Corinth in 2 Corinthians 7:8-10, regarding his aggressive 1^st letter and said: “Even if I caused you sorrow by my letter, I do not regret it. Though I did regret it—I see that my letter hurt you, but only for a little while— yet now I am happy, not because you were made sorry, but because your sorrow led you to repentance. For you became sorrowful as God intended and so were not harmed in any way by us. Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death.”

2 Timothy 2:25-26 speaks of the man of God and says: “Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.”

Jude 20-23 says: “But you, dear friends, build yourselves up in your most holy faith and pray in the Holy Spirit. Keep yourselves in God's love as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life. Be merciful to those who doubt; snatch others from the fire and save them; to others show mercy, mixed with fear—hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh.”

In as the Bible does instruct me to “encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it” (Titus 1:9), it also gives me direction for the character of that teaching and refutation. Part of that is in having a gentle and respectful spirit, which I desire to model. That being said, I still have serious problems with the ideas and teaching of the book “Can You Hear Me” and desire to call to attention what seems to be unbiblical teaching that has been insufficiently addressed (to the best of my knowledge)

Understanding Listening Prayer

Can You Hear Me is broken up into three sections. The first section goes through the “what” and “why” questions, attempting to help the reader know what “listening prayer” is and to give a biblical basis and argumentation for the reality and normative nature of listening prayer. The second and third sections answer the “how” and “when” questions, explaining how listening prayer works practically and how/when to use it in various situations. So let us examine the argument of the book and see what is being said.

Defining “Listening Prayer”

Brad Jersak introduces the phrase “listening prayer” on the sixteenth page of Can You Hear Me, but takes his time defining exactly what listening prayer is (and his definition is not necessarily reflective of his practice). Walking through the introduction, Jersak comments on how he studied the Bible intently and became proud of his seminary degrees and personal piety but had never heard God’s voice (page 10). He says “I had accumulated Bible facts but ended up bankrupt because I didn’t know the Living Word, Jesus” (10).

He then explains how a man named Patrick confronted him on his “stronghold of spiritual pride” by quoting and applying 2 Timothy 3:5 (akin to calling Brad a false teacher), Matthew 22:29 (somewhat akin…maybe… to calling him a Pharisee) and John 5:36-40 (again akin…somewhat…to calling him a Pharisee). Patrick allegorically applied those 3 scriptures to Brad and by ripping them outside of their historical/grammatical context, used them to tell him that the “extra something” in the Christian life that Brad was seeking was to “hear God’s voice” (i.e. embrace charismatic experience and become a prophet).

He continues in the introduction to record how he “recognized none of the early Christian experience or ministry in my own life”, how the Lord shattered his “rationalistic” master of divinity degree and how he prayed that God would show Jersak his glory (10).

In commenting on his credentials, Jersak states that his education will not “authorize me as a spokesman for God’s heart”.[1] Speaking of his book, he writes that “it offers an alternative that appeals to those mystical cravings yet demystifies the process” (10) and that it is written to pastors and leaders to prepare them to “train their congregations to hear God without fear of producing prophetic flakes” (12).

In the first chapter, Jersak writes that “in listening prayer, we meet none other than Jesus Christ, the voice of the living God” (16). [Meeting Jesus sounds good, but that statement is not a definition in itself.] He talks about the frustration of how some people “go around claiming ‘God told me’” (wrongly claiming or utilizing prophetic revelation) and then contrasts that with “Jesus Christ’s approach to hearing God”, which is apparently given in John 10:2-15 (17).

Skipping ahead, Jersak comments that Jesus promised Christians the reception of propositional revelation beyond the canonical scriptures (21), that Acts 2 brought a flood of revelation (21), that prophecies, visions and dreams are all versions of God’s voice (21) and that when Jesus poured out the Spirit in the book of Acts, “…he began to pour our the Spirit-the Spirit of revelation in particular-on every believer” (22). It seems clear that Jersak sees “listening prayer” as essentially “functioning prophetically” and Jersak see this promise of prophetic function (the reception of new revelation) to be for all believers. This claim seems to be a large one, though not impossible. Jersak indeed has a large goal in mind if he is to give adequate biblical proof for his position, so let us examine his biblical defense…

The Biblical Case for Listening Prayer

Jersak’s key text is John 10:1-18, and he reads John 10:2-15 as applying directly to Christians. He extrapolates several promises from the passage: Christ has a voice, he does speak and his sheep do hear his voice (18). Given that he defines God’s voice as “prophecies, visions, and dreams” (21) among other things, he apparently takes the passage to mean that Christ speaks propositional revelation and his sheep hear his voice prophetically. He comments on John 10:2-15 saying, “Note that Jesus did not say ‘My prophets hear my voice.’…According to Jesus, his voice is not reserved for the spiritually elite, the priest, or the guru” (18).

***Just to be clear, Jersak takes John 10:2-15 as “Jesus Christ’s approach to hearing God” and given his definition of “God’s voice”, the passage of John 10:1-15 becomes Christ’s prescription for functioning prophetically (17).

Thinking to the time before he discovered listening prayer, Jersak then asks why he previously did not hear God’s voice. Jersak answers himself with Elihu’s words from Job 33:13-18, learning that God does speak (regardless of personal doubts), he speaks all the time and he speaks in many ways (20). He goes on to say that “Elihu is telling us that God’s radio station is always on. He’s broadcasting loud and clear, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The trouble is, we are not dialing in” (20).

***So Jersak takes Job 33:13-18 to mean that God is constantly delivering propositional prophetic revelation to mankind and people simply do not know how to receive it.

Not only is God “broadcasting” his thoughts, but he wants to share what he has to say with people. He comments that Psalm 139:17-18 informs him that God is constantly thinking innumerable thoughts about Christians (individually) and John 16:12-15 explains that “he (God) is willing-no, longing- to share those thoughts with you” (20). Commenting on John 16:12-15 Jersak writes,

“Jesus told his disciples that even after we consider everything he told them, both that which is recorded in the gospels and all that was not, he still had much more to say. But he withheld it, because they could not handle it yet…The Holy Spirit would come and continue sharing that which Jesus had left unsaid. He would guide them into all truth (John 16:13). If you wand to personalize this message, what Jesus is really saying is, there is so much more he wants to share with you. Were you to memorize every word of the Scriptures, the Lord would still not be satisfied. There is still more. And this ‘more’ is what the Holy Spirit is sent to deliver.” (20-21)

So what does the Holy Spirit share with us? Jersak writes,

“His (Holy Spirit) task is to share ‘whatever he hears.’ What does the Spirit hear? And whom does he hear? The Spirit hears the Father and Son. He eavesdrops on their conversations-on the innumerable thoughts they exchange with one another. Remember, a myriad of those thoughts are about you and for you. The Spirit overhears them and then comes over to say “Do you know what they’re saying? I want to tell you.” (21)

Jersak comments that “in the Old Testament era, the voice of God seemed rare, sporadic, and exclusive” but when Jesus poured out the Spirit in the New Testament, the pouring out of the Spirit was “generous, continuous, and all-inclusive” (22). Jersak states that “According to Paul, our God is no speechless idol. He is a God whose Spirit speaks to and through his people (1 Corinthians 12:2-4)” (26).

But how do Christians have assurance that they have guaranteed access to this constant divine revelation? Jersak finds another answer in the Old Testament. He also quotes Jeremiah 33:3 and observes,

“As we call out to God, let us rehearse this straightforward promise. God does not say ‘Call to me and the devil will answer and deceive you.’ Nor does he say ‘Call to me and I might answer you when I feel like it.’ Nor does he say ‘Call to me and I will answer you if…’ Rather, he promises us (upon the life of his Son), ‘I [the Lord and no other] Will [most certainly] answer [respond to, converse with] you’ [not just the prophets or the priests, but you my children]”. (26)

Addressing Skepticism to Listening Prayer

Now Brad Jersak isn’t a fool; he knows that what he’s talking about may sound frightening to some of his readers. In efforts to explain to his readers that they already are experiencing what he is talking about (and thereby should be quick to embrace his teaching), Jersak comments on several ways that God “speaks” to people that they do not recognize. He comments that God already “speaks” to people through salvation (27), scripture (28), preaching (30), worship (31), conviction of sin (32), burden of conscience to pray for individual (33) and prompting of conscience to encourage individuals (34). Jersak notes how “normal” circumstances and convictions are, in actuality, God speaking (35). He rebukes his readers in missing God’s common methods of speaking, saying how it is wrong to think that “… God will only speak in grandiosity…” (35). Apparently, God speaks more frequently through seemingly meaningless events and situations in daily life.

Jersak also addresses the problem of extra biblical revelation when he writes “God’s voice is heard primarily through the Scriptures” (37), but when one reads the Scriptures, one is not necessarily hearing God speaking. Jersak asks his readers “…did you know that you could carefully study and faithfully memorize the Scriptures all your life and still never once hear the voice of God?” (38). He evidences this statement up by quoting John 5:37-40, paralleling Cessationists with Pharisees, saying “The doctrine of cessationism taught that once the canon of Scripture was complete, God had delivered his final word; when the last word of the book of Revelation was written, God ceased to speak. Modern-day prophets were said to have crossed the line of orthodoxy” (39). So what changed his mind?

Jersak records that “The turning point came for me when I encountered a genuine, modern-day prophet for the first time” (39). The prophet showed him familiar image and that extremely coincidental experience was taken as a verification of the person’s authentic prophetic function (In fact, Jersak abandoned his version of “cessationism” by seeing a familiar image of a burning ice cube…there’s no mention of any sort of biblical examination at all, either of his experience or his new doctrinal change). After that experience, Jersak explains how he “returned to the Scriptures with new ears to hear the truth concerning God’s voice” and learned, from the Scriptures, that “God’s voice may be heard via at least three broad avenues: messengers, circumstances, and direct messages to our hearts” (40).

So what does this all mean?

It seems rather difficult to misunderstand what Jersak is suggesting. Let’s quickly jump back through what he said his problem was and what changed his mind:

- He studied the Bible but didn’t really experience charismatic experiences in his life (which he thought, based on his reading of the book of Acts and his rebuke from Patrick, that he should have experienced)

- He was rebuked by a person who misapplied scripture to his life and told him that the thing he sinfully longed for (he admits that he hated prophets who appeared more spiritual than him on page 9) was the thing he should be chasing.

- He met a “real” prophet and was convinced by a striking experience (which also suggests that the Bible wasn’t enough to convince him).

He seems to clearly expect that though not every Christian does function prophetically (receive propositional revelation from the Holy Spirit via either audibly or visually), but they should. The possibility for every Christian to receive extra-biblical revelation is both promised in the Scripture and should be part of the normative Christian experience. Is Jersak’s position biblical? Is he faithful to the teaching of Scripture? An examination of his supporting texts and a look at his hermeneutical practices will show whether his position on “listening prayer” stands or falls. But, time is fleeting and this note has taken me far too long to get out (I’ve been unbelievably busy). I’ll simply throw down his biblical support, open up discussion, and then systematically address it some future post.

There are essentially four texts of scripture that Jersak takes as prophetic promises regarding ‘hearing” the voice of God; John 10:1-15, Job 33:13-18, John 16:12-15 and Jeremiah 33:3.[2] The verses are used to form the formula of listening prayer:

1. God speaks propositional communication to Christians (John 10:1-15).

2. God speaks propositional communication regardless of its perception (Job 33:13-18).

3. This propositional communication is extra-biblical revelation that the Holy Spirit will make known to Christians (John 16:12-15).

4. The Biblically prescribed method for accessing this revelation is by request (Jeremiah 33:3).

Now this leaves one to examine the texts and see if Jersak seems to be properly handling the various scriptures in their own respective contexts, properly applying them for the formulation of the answer which he presents. Does Brad’s argument seem to clearly flow from the passages of scripture that he puts together? Do the passages seem topically related? Do they seem to be talking about prophecy, or something else altogether?

More so, what does Brad’s ‘conversion’ experience to non-cessationism seem like? What do you think of his description of himself in his bible school days? Is the Bible as unclear on the issue as he claims? Is the crux of the question of cessationism/non-cessationism simply that the Cessationists simply have not met a real prophet where as the non-Cessationists have? Does God ‘speak’ equally through salvation, scripture, preaching, worship, conviction of sin, burden of conscience to pray for individual and prompting of conscience to encourage individuals?

Talk amongst yourselves.

Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theologian (Lyndon Unger)

[1] “A spokesman for God’s heart” definitely sounds like Jersak is simply talking about being a prophet, for that definition seems strikingly familiar. Walvoord defines a prophets as “authoritative channels through which God could give divine revelation, sometimes about the contemporary situation and sometimes about the future.” John Walvoord. 1986. The Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts. Bibliotheca Sacra 143 no. 570 (April-June): 113.

Stitzinger defines a prophet simply as someone who functioned “as a spokesman for God…on the basis of possessing supernatural knowledge.” James F. Stitzinger. 2003. Spiritual Gifts: Definitions and Kinds. Master's Seminary Journal 14 no. 2 (Fall): 167.

Farnell almost uses the same words as Jersak in defining prophecy, saying that a prophet is a “spokesman or mouthpiece for the Lord”. David Farnell. 1993. When Will the Gift of Prophecy Cease? Bibliotheca Sacra 150 no. 598 (April-June): 173.

[2] On page 70, Jersak re-lists his “promise verses” as Matthew 28:20; Joshua 1:5; John 10:14,27; Jeremiah 33:3 and Matthew 7:8-11. The verses listed though are the main passages from which Jersak derives his exegetical support in his opening chapters and Matthew 28:20, Joshua 1:5 and Matthew 7:8-11 are not to be found in the first 2 chapters as part of that exegetical support. It is confusing why Jersak changes his supporting texts in the third chapter, but the change is not addressed by Jersak.

I remembered my password!

2008-11-13T08:53:00.001-08:00

I may start blogging again! Hooray!

Until Next Time (or next year),

The Armchair Theologian

Explanations and articulations...

2008-05-01T15:03:00.000-07:00

Well, today I remembered that I apparently have a blog. I kinda forgot...

I've migrated to Facebook for much of my connection and idea sharing with people, and the blogdom seems to have kinda died out for me. I may revive it some time, but the original purpose for this blog has been removed and now I'm sidetracked from blogging from all the other things in my life (marriage, school, work, Facebook, etc.).

If anyone wants to keep tabs on me, look up "Lyndon Unger" on Facebook (though I think I'm connected with all 3 of my readers already).

I may do some "summer posts", namely re-post some of the things that will end up on Facebook. We'll see. Either way, I figured that I'd stop by and kinda declare this blog "dead until further notice".

God Bless all.

Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theologian

Some thoughts to share on salvation...

2008-02-15T15:17:00.000-08:00

Someone recently asked me "What exactly does it mean to be 'saved'?" and I gave them this response...

********
It's not some esoteric mystery.

Christianity isn't about making you a better person. (It's *partly* about recognizing that you're a wretched, cursed sinful person)

Christianity isn't about getting a membership badge. (Though a Christian does become a member of the church universal)

Christianity isn't about getting out of Hell. (Though Christians are no longer threatened by the judgment for their sin that lands them up in Hell).

Why do you think Christians use the term "saved"?

The Bible says that Christians are "saved"."

Saved" from what?

Hell? no.

Sins? no.

Christians are "saved" from the coming wrath of God.

Romans 5:9 says "Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him!"When a person is "saved", they're no longer under the threat of God's unmitigated wrath against their sin.

Instead, Christ perpetually averts God's judgment against sinners:"Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.Such a high priest meets our need—one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself." - Hebrews 7:23-28

********
...What changes when a person is "Saved" is that they are saved from God's wrath and judgment and have Christ to intercede for them, perpetually averting the wrath of God against them.

Salvation ultimately ends up with a person being thrown into hell...but a person is indirectly "saved" from the penalty and directly saved from the judgment...hence Christians are not "saved" from Hell.

Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theologian

Thoughts on Revival...

2007-11-21T10:19:00.000-08:00

This is a response to a question regarding Christian revival that a friend recently e-mailed to me. I figured I'd share it with you, my reader(s):

...do Christians NEED revival, even when we've been made alive in Christ? Well, there is a difference between being "regenerate" and being "filled with the Spirit". Paul commands the latter in Ephesians 5:18, and he commands that of Christians. Essentially, Christians need to be increasingly under the control of the Spirit, growing in obedience to God's word.

That is one of the reasons why Paul wrote all his epistles to Galatia, Corinth, Ephesus, etc. They needed to be instructed by the Lord how to "walk in the Spirit" more than they currently were. But when you read Paul's epistles, you also recognize that Paul was writing to people who WERE Christians. They just were not walking in complete obedience to the Lord...hence they needed revival; the stirring up of the Spirit in them, teaching their minds the truth of God and stirring their hearts to obey.

So yes, we always need THAT kind of revival.

We don't need to get "psyched up" or "on fire for God". That's useless.

Getting "excited" or "on fire" is not revival. That's sheer emotionalism that then leads people to make oaths to God as to how they plan to "be better people" or "serve him more", and those self-driven oaths always crap out, leaving people frustrated that they cannot sustain that level of emotional commitment to God.

When, in modern "revival", people get all psyched up and commit to doing things, they do so usually in response to a "let's get going" sermon; one designed to drum up an emotional response. (I admit that it's a lot easier to preach LOUD than to preach WELL, and most people are clueless as to the difference.) But making oaths to God in a frenzy of emotion consistently leads to frustration, for we lack the resources in ourselves to produce righteous fruit in our lives.

True revival comes from God's Spirit changing hearts via the insertion of truth (in expository preaching, though it can also occur from personal study of the word, or group study of the word) and the scripture doing it's work in the human heart. People often don't recognize true revival because it's often quiet.

It lacks emotionalism, sensationalism, and volume (usually...). But, when the word is effectively delivered to the heart and starts renewing the mind, empowered by the Spirit, then deep heart changes (down in the depths) occur and lives are overhauled. That is what is needed. The core of the heart is where change needs to occur, and that is where real revival happens.

Just some rambling thoughts on revival.

Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theologian

Oh really? More thoughts from a psycho...

2007-11-07T16:44:00.001-08:00

Well, I've gotten guff from people who don't like my comments on atheistic evolution. I say that atheistic evolutionists are trying to have their cake and eat it too:

They dismiss the existence of God's person and word, but still attempt to hang on to his moral standards and orderly universe...all the while not really explaining how they attempt to do this moral slight of hand. Law without a lawgiver. Universal Morals without a Universal Moralist.

They don't want God to tell them how they came to be but they still want him to tell them how to live.

But then, tragedies happen and I read something like this:

"'In the rambling text posted on the site, Auvinen said that he is 'a cynical existentialist, anti-human humanist, anti-social social-Darwinist, realistic idealist and god-like atheist'.

"' am prepared to fight and die for my cause,' he wrote. 'I, as a natural selector, will eliminate all who I see unfit, disgraces of human race and failures of natural selection.'"

Oh really now? Mr Pekka Eric Auvinen openly declares that a key factor in his decision to go on a killing spree was that he saw himself as "a natural selector, (who) will eliminate all who I see unfit..."

Call me crazy, but that kinda sounds like some sort of atheistic evolutionary thought.

What's more, in the atheistic evolutionary worldview, who's to say he's wrong?

And on what basis?

1. On the basis that he has done something that has harmed individuals?

Well, he's dead and so are they. What does he care?

2. On the basis that he's brought greater displeasure to his community than would have occured if he had not done it?

Again, he's dead. Most likely, he doesn't care about other people's pain.

3. On the basis that he was selfish and not working to further the community?

Why is being selfish wrong? He brought himself pleasure by killing. Now he's dead and he died doing what brought him pleasure, so he must have died happy. More over, it happened quickly (though I think he was in a coma for a while). Doesn't every 85 year old want to die happy, quickly and painlessly? What more could a person want?

I mean, he did clear out the gene pool a bit. He probably weeded out the kids that were too stupid to run away from the sound of gunfire (or hide). He had a gun; he was more fit than those around him who didn't. He was ruthless and impersonal, like nature is. It seems to me that he actually did nothing wrong...in fact, he was probably just doing what nature would have done anyways.

I just don't get how this doesn't happen more. Atheistic evolutionary thought is all over. Why are people shocked when intelligent kids actually live like they're atheistic evolutionists?

If humanity is overrated, why not just kill a few people for giggles?

Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theologian

Some thoughts from a psycho...

2007-10-19T10:00:00.000-07:00

Most people in North America are superstitiously and self-servingly religious; they serve gods that "help those who help themselves" and think that they're essentially "good" people. They tread close to the edge of "socially acceptable" but never really "go nuts" and carry out their personal beliefs with consistency. Atheists never are true moral relativists, evolutionists discuss questions of "purpose" in the universe, Mormons claim to keep the Levitical law but never bother actually learning the law that they claim to keep, and so on and so on.

But every now and then though, there are people who really live out their beliefs, and when we see the outworking of an anti-Christian philosophy in a post-Christian culture, we're shocked and appalled. We imprison those people and demonize them, pretending that they're not normal and not living as we tell them that they should. Don't know what I mean?

Well, Jeffery Dahmer was a serial killer who was apprehended in 1991 and found guilty of murdering and dismembering at least 15 people. You can read about him here. A friend sent me this video of him explaining his own interpretation of his actions, and I gotta admit, I was surprised, though not really shocked. Check it out:

I was surprised at the connections that he admitted to making between evolutionary philosophy and his mass murdering. Now evolutionists would say "well, he's a psycho. He's mentally unstable and in need of therapy! Who cares what he thinks?" But I would reply, "well, if life is meaningless and you don't have to answer to anyone for your actions, why not kill a few people that won't be missed and start a skull collection? In the grand scheme of things, it won't matter one way or another, will it?"

Atheists and evolutionists may philosophically agree with that sentiment, but none of them wants to be the "victim who doesn't matter" for all men fear the grave, regardless of what they say.

It seems to me that the evolutionary and atheistic thinkers want the Christian worldview to be true only when it's convenient for them, and use Christian morality to reject people who carry out their own philosophies to their logical conclusions. Just some thoughts from a psycho. Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theologian

Some teensy comparisons on an important issue...

2007-10-17T15:48:00.001-07:00

Greetings Blogarians! I have returned for a moment!

As I'm avoiding cleaning my room, I find myself reading the Qu'ran in an effort to find an answer to a question I've recently heard about Islam being a religion of peace and teaching "love". So, I've prepared a few excerpts from the Qu'ran along with some parallel excerpts from the Bible, just to see how they compare. Let's take a peeksy:

1. An-Nisáa (women) 015-16 "As for those of your women who are guilty of lewdness, call to witness four of you against them. And if they testify (to the truth of the allegation) then confine them to the houses until death take them or (until) Allah appoint for them a way (through new legislation). And as for the two of you who are guilty thereof, punish them both. And if they repent and improve, then let them be. Lo! Allah is ever relenting, Merciful."

Leviticus 20:10 - "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death."

So, giving Christianity the worst possible representation (ignoring the fact that Christians don't even need to keep the law and the New Testament gives specific instruction regarding this issue in 1 Corinthians 7), Islam and Christianity look similar. I'm not sure what "lewdness" would mean, but I'm guessing it's something similar to adultery. Seeing that I know more about Christianity than I do Islam, I will be open to the possibility of other Islamic teachings to which I am unaware so I'll let this one be called a tie. Both seem to have harsh regulations regarding adultery (assuming lewdness is adultery).

2. An-Nisáa (women) 034 "Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great."

1 Peter 3:7 - "Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers."

Ephesians 5:25-30 - "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— for we are members of his body. "

Uh Oh. The Qu'ran has an explicit command instructing husbands to beat their wives. It's true that the Old Testament may contain at least 1 narrative record of women being beaten (possibly inferred in Genesis 16:6, though not necessarily), but the women who is beaten is a slave and the beating of a slave is allowed, at least in the Old Testament (Exodus 21:20, and again I'm giving Christianity its worst possible representation). That being what it may, nowhere in the Bible is wife beating explicitly commanded, sanctioned or even spoken of in any sort of positive light.

The Qu'ran explicitly commands wife beating, and the Bible does not.

You learn something new every day, though this is not something that I'm pleased to learn. Also, if anyone is curious, I found this debate on Youtube from Qatar TV on the issue. I don't recommend that any women with light stomachs watch it though.

Either way, I suspect that the western, secularized representatives of Islam wouldn't want the average American investigating the Islamic teachings on this issue that are common knowledge and experience in the middle east; knowing about explicitly commanded wife beating wouldn't help win points for the western Islamic clean up campaign ("We're not violent...HONEST!"). Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theologian

Two thoughts...

2007-09-24T12:08:00.000-07:00

Sorry to all 3 of my readers out there; life has been insanely busy as of the last 2 months. School has restarted, I'm working part time now, my sweetie-pie has relocated to Los Angeles (and I've been helping her get settled, find work, find a place to live...not to mention realize daily how selfish and stupid I am...doh!) and I've been generally going nuts. SO, here's two thoughts for today that at least qualify as the first post in a long while:

1. Very little reveals the depravity, ignorance and wickedness of man as much as the Internet. I've gotten suckered a little into quick online debates over the past 2 months and I am consistently amazed at how people don't seem to ever really wand to discuss things for the sake of gaining understanding but instead only seem worried about telling your their opinions (USUALLY IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS SO YOU KNOW THAT THEY ARE SERIOUS) and then communicating to you that by disagreeing with them, you are a corn-fed Iowa idiot with no right to live.

Beyond that, it's amazing how rude and ignorant people can be (myself included) when one adds "anonymity" into the debate. If they don't know you, they can insult away and not be worried about it. It's even amazing how bad "Christians" get on the internet. Romans 3:10-18 is quite vividly illustrated by the conduct of people on the Internet.

2. The word faith movement is horrifyingly wicked. Yesterday, I went to a certain word faith church on Sherman way in Van Nuys that I wasn't sure about. I had heard that the pastor was "kinda" evangelical and that the church was "pretty okay". Well, I was almost shocked...almost. (I've learned to expect the worst when people describe a church as "kinda" okay!) I'll skip the worship critique (which was why I was there; evaluating a worship service in a church other than my own for a class) and simply comment that people who expect God to grant them pay raises and health because he owes it to them live lives that are utter torment. There was a time in the service where we had to pray with some people around us and I got to pray with a sickly elderly woman and a young couple. The woman wanted us to "claim" a healing for her and the young man whirled himself into a frenzy for around 3-4 minutes, getting louder and louder. She didn't get healed and sat down quite discouraged, and I felt so sad for her and so angered at the false teachers that she was sitting under.

Beyond that, the pastor preached on 2 Chronicles 20 and I was sickened at his handling of the scripture. He took a story of God's covenant faithfulness and twisted the text to instead say that "everyone has their own song in them, and when you learn to sing your God given song, you'll free the Lord to work in your life." (based on verse 22 being the central verse of the passage). The pastor made the scripture become an allegory for "overcoming struggles in your life" in an effort to redeem some meaning out of the old story (he made a distinct point of commenting on how it was an "old story" that still had something it could teach us).

I hate the word faith teaching, and I really hate allegorical (and sometimes covenantal) hermeneutics that hack and slash the scriptures or find a different meaning in a passage, depending on what day of the week it is. ARGH!

Okay...that was like 3 or 4 thoughts. Oh well. Time for lunch! Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theologian

Did you know...

2007-07-13T13:25:00.000-07:00

That in June 2007, there were TWO creation science museums opened in North America? The first was the large Answers in Genesis Creation Museum, the $27 million operation that was opened in Kentucky and attracted hundreds of protesters and tremendous media response.

The second was the Big Valley Creation Science Museum, which had around 2 dozen people at it's opening and absolutely no protest. It was designed, built and funded entirely by one man; Harry Nibourg (and he spend a lot less than $27 million on it). He's a oil patch worker from Alberta. CTV covered it, (check out both videos on that page) as did the CBC and it hit the news as far away as Australia, but nobody really cared.

I love the quote from the mayor of Big Valley, "I disagree with him, but so what? He's entitled to his opinion and I'm entitled to mine!"

I love liberal, socialist, tolerant Canada! HA! It seems that the only people making a stink about it are American Bloggers! HA!

Back Off! Go whine about your own Creation Museum!

Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theologian

Beauty is in the eye of the...

2007-07-02T19:20:00.000-07:00

...Digital photo editor.

Now for years upon years, I've had conversations with dozens upon dozens of women about a subject that constantly haunts them; self image and beauty. I often feel for the tens of thousands of Christian women who are torn by the "inner beauty" message of the Bible and the "outer beauty" message of popular culture and popular media. Also, for years, I've been saying that popular media is simply all about marketing, and marketing is creative deception. Every single women's magazine is a virtual cornucopia of deceit, for all popular magazines and video utilize digital effects and image retouching/manipulation to present an ideal that is entirely fiction.

The girls in the magazines are so touched up that even they look at the magazines, and their own photos, and say "I wish I looked like that". But being a boy, I'm often dismissed. Interestingly, a photoshop wizard posted a quick video of himself retouching a photo, showing just how simple and amazingly a photo can be altered. Check this out:

Now this isn't earth shattering, but I'm guessing it's the first time some people have actually seen this done. This is why magazines like Vogue have full time photoshop pros on their staff. Just some food for thought.

Remember, even the models themselves don't look as good as the covers. Culture outright and maliciously lies to women to make them chase an ideal that is fictitious, with the hope that in their struggle to get there, those women will buy all their "age defying formula" and "longer lasting mascara" they can get their hands on.

There's nothing wrong with makeup and nothing wrong with being attractive. Just stop reading Vogue and Mademoiselle as if they represented anything related to reality. If one desires to learn about real beauty, one should instead read 1 Timothy 2:9-10, 1 Peter 3:1-6 and Proverbs 31. Spread the word.

Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theologian

Some thoughts about the local church...

2007-06-20T12:38:00.000-07:00

Commitment and the essential importance of having a connection with a local church is something that most churches don't actually teach these days. It seems to be that in this era, people think that they can be part of the body of Christ in whatever way they find suits their personal preferences. That's a horribly harmful idea that, when factored in with our own penchant to disobey the Lord (even the redeemed struggle with sin), consistently leads one away from where they should be.

Here's some reasons why having a commitment to a local church is important:

1. It's commanded. Plain and simple biblical imperative. Hebrews 10:25 says "Let us not five up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing..."

2. It's a question of submission. Ephesians 5:24 says that the church submits to Christ. John 14:23 says "f anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching." Part of the great commission is to evangelize and then be "teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you." (Matthew 28:20.

If you are a Christian, you must submit to the Lordship of Christ and let him tell you what to do. If you live a life marked by disobedience to Christ's commands and Lordship, you have no business thinking you're a Christian.

And seeing that as Christians, we are grafted into his body, which IS the church (Eph 5:23, Col. 1:18, 24). If you are a Christian, you're automatically part of the body of Christ, meaning you're part of the church universal.

3. But, I cannot have fellowship with the church universal. And there are a ton of "one another" commands in scripture:

- "Be devoted to one another in brotherly love. Honor one another above yourselves." (Romans 12:10)

- "Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited." (Romans 12:16)

- "Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law." (Romans 13:8)

- "Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way." (Romans 14:13)

- "Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God." (Romans 15:7)

- "I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought." (1 Corinthians 1:10)

- "But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature ; rather, serve one another in love." (Galatians 5:13)

- "Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love." (Ephesians 4:2)

- "Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you." (Ephesians 4:32)

- Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs." (Ephesians 5:19)

- "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ." (Ephesians 5:21)

- "Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you." (Colossians 3:13)

- "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God." (Colossians 3:16)

- "Therefore encourage one another and build each other up, just as in fact you are doing." (1 Thessalonians 5:11)

- "But encourage one another daily, as long as it is called Today, so that none of you may be hardened by sin's deceitfulness." (Hebrews 3:13)

- "And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds. Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching." (Hebrews 10:24-25)

- "Brothers, do not slander one another. Anyone who speaks against his brother or judges him speaks against the law and judges it. When you judge the law, you are not keeping it, but sitting in judgment on it." (James 4:11)

- "Now that you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth so that you have sincere love for your brothers, love one another deeply, from the heart." (1 Peter 1:22)

- "Finally, all of you, live in harmony with one another; be sympathetic, love as brothers, be compassionate and humble." (1 Peter 3:8)

- "Offer hospitality to one another without grumbling." (1 Peter 4:9)

- "Young men, in the same way be submissive to those who are older. All of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, because, "God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble." (1 Peter 5:5)

- "This is the message you heard from the beginning: We should love one another." (1 John 3:11)

- "And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us." (1 John 3:23)

- "Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God." (1 John 4:7)

- "Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us." (1 John 4:11-12)

I would suggest that all these "one another" statements CANNOT happen in some ambiguous way via the church universal. I mean, 1 John 1:7 says"But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin."

Walking in the light (living uprightly) means that we will have fellowship with one another.

If one remove oneself from the fellowship, it's quite reasonable to question whether one is then "walking in the light".

So, here's the bottom line:

If you're a Christian, you are called to submit to Christ and you're automatically part of his church. If you remove yourself from that local expression of his church (and you're ability to obey all the "one another" imperatives in scripture) for whatever reason you have, you're also choosing to remove yourself from the local expression of Christ's body, and your commitment to Jesus is rightly in question.

What this does NOT mean:

1. If you ever miss a week of church you're going straight to hell.

2. If your church is a lousy church, you just buckle down and keep trudging.

3. Anyone who's ever left "the church" is automatically going straight to hell.

What this DOES mean:

1. Bedside Baptist is not a real church. You cannot do Christ's church your own way. You do it his way. Worshipping in the mountains is great, but it's not a replacement for the local expression of Christ's body.

2. If you attend a lousy church, then you need to find a decent church that teaches the truth and lives in obedience to the word of God.

3. If you're struggling here, you most likely do NOT have a problem with Church. You most likely have a problem with submission to Christ. You most likely have issues with sin. As yourself how's your prayer life (hour a day or more?). How's your devotional life? (What did you learn in your study of scripture today?) Where are you serving in your church? (Are you plugged in where you're at?) Can you name the 5 major sins you're fighting and lay out your strategy for battle? (Are you seeking to destroy sin and obey the Lord?)

I talk to people, time and again, who are "struggling with church". I ask them all those basic "where are you at spiritually" questions, and they bomb out consistently. I mean, if a person has a lousy prayer life, hasn't studied the Bible in 2 months (or years), is only attending and not serving anywhere at church, and doesn't know where they're fighting sin, that means they're not plugged in to either the Lord or his church. It's always amazing how consistently, people who are spiritually doing horrible are having spiritual struggles. Not exactly rocket science there. I believe that's called a "plank in the eye". (Matthew 7:1-6 - having a beef with how crappy your church is when you're the one who's actually doing really crappy...)

4. If you're struggling with church and you're answering yes to all the "spiritual inventory' questions (i.e. you're in prayer, in the word, plugged in and serving in your church, and you're actively fight sin) and you're STILL struggling with your church, then you're either so far gone that you think you're a saint when really you need counseling...

OR...

You're attending a lousy church. Are you lining up with them theologically? Is your church teaching bed doctrine? Are they not practicing what they're being taught?

It IS possible to be a saint in a horrid church, but this is not too common.

If this is you, then get into a good bible teaching, obedient body of believers.

This is a firm post to anyone who reads this and thinks that they can survive outside the church. If you think that, you're horribly mistaken. Don't leave Christ's body just because there are schmucks and hypocrites in it. The hypocrites need to be weeded out or called to repent, the schmucks need to be educated and you need to learn to submit to the one you claim as Lord.

Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theologian

Quite possibly the second coolest thing ever...

2007-06-02T20:24:00.000-07:00

Now, I have to admit that when I was a kid I saw tons of things that I thought were cool. Probably one of the coolest was these cars and trucks that could turn into robots, and they're coming back in a movie this summer. Those things were cool and I always thought that when I was 16, I'd have my own transformer. Well, the Japanese have let me down. They never invented Transformers like I thought they would...

...But amazingly the Mexicans have fully come through with something I didn't expect! After seeing a rocketpack on an old James Bond movie, I always wanted one of those too. Tecnologia Aeroespacial Mexicana is the only current aerospace company that builds rocketpacks, and you can find them here for a paltry $250,000. What a steal! The technology has improved on them as well, and now they can go almost 60 miles and hours and fly for 30 seconds! MAN! All they need is to double the effeciency and give them like 20 times the fuel and you could fly your rocketpack to work. No WHO wouldn't want that? LOL!

Until Next Time,

The Armchair Jetson

Talk about illustrating the differences!

2007-05-23T13:51:00.000-07:00

On Facebook, I've been debating the old creation and evolution issue with some fellas. I've thrown out the "nature of evidence" argument and it's been misunderstood a few times, but that's to be expected. So here's a funny illustration of exactly what I'm talking about.

Apparently researchers have found soft tissue in a Tyrannosaurus Rex bone and have extracted some collagen (and examined the proteins therein). This is nothing new though, and has been happening for a few years now. What is interesting though is that a common question comes up with this. The question is alluded to when one of the researchers, Mary Higby Schweitzer, says, "It had been thought that some proteins could last a million years or more, but not to the age of the dinosaurs"

BUT...

The Tyrannosaurus is supposed to be 68 million years old.

Does anyone even bother to ask the question "how can this be? Could the T. Rex be a lot younger than we think?"

Nope. Not for a second.

Now, apparently they were wrong about how long proteins could last. They used to think that some proteins could last upwards of a million years. They find a dinosaur that has an assumed age and their data is off by a factor of around sixty-eight times, but they uphold the theory and reject the obvious conclusion drawn from the data (and I'm the one who's always accused of having a bias...).

Would anyone EVER suggest "Gee Mary! I wonder how old this T. Rex is then? It can't be 68 million years old. The proteins would have been long dead by then. Maybe it's around a million years old, or younger!"

No sir. Not even an option. That's silly talk.

I've been saying it for years:

The Biblically driven and the non-Biblically driven scientist both see the same data.

It's not a question of evidence...it's a question of how you see the data and who is deciding what constitutes evidence.

Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theologian

P.S. - I'm in summer classes now, so posting is few and far between...sorry!

Speaking of the BackStreet Boys...

2007-04-27T12:17:00.000-07:00

I was reading my bible a little while ago and noticed some other passages in the Bible that may be refering to some other celebrities. Consider the following:

Isaiah 3:16-24 anyone?

Or what about this?

Dawkins thinks he saying new and novel things when really, 2 Peter 3:3-7 foretold his coming and his arguments long ago (and the coming of all like minded people who attack Christ for no real apparent reason)

Or this clown who figured that Jesus never met up to his full potential?

The bible talks about this fella too...I think it's in Proverbs? (Notice how Proverbs puts this guy behind the backstreet boys ...HA!)

Then there's this battalion:

(I still love the "Can SOMEONE explain this book to me? PLEASE?" caption the best!)

With a goof troup this big, you'd think that the Bible would talk a fair amount about them. Well, it does! 2 Corinthians 11-12, 2 Timothy 3:1-8, 1 Timothy 6:3-5, 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12, 2 Peter 2:1-3:16, 2 John 1:7-11 all mention these deceitful workers (not to mention all the Old Testament passages that are connected to them by Peter or Matthew 7:13-27!).

Well, it's almost like the Bible is applicable to real life and stuff today.

And in all honesty, this post was really for the purpose of posting somthing new and making my first point about Britney...the rest of it is filler! HA!

Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theologian.

A Re-post of the Backstreet Boys post...

2007-04-25T00:03:00.000-07:00

Well, I posted this over at TheoAmigos, but I'm puttin it here too, simply becasue it entertains me so much! I was talking with Dusto tonight and we were laughing at how silly this idea was, and yet how blatantly obvious. Anyway, here's some thoughts for you all:

*******************************************************************

So you're thinking of going on summer missions with...

...The Backstreet Boys?

Apparently!

Apparently at least one of them is a serious, hard-core Christian who even has his own ministry...which is called "The Backstreet Boys". Yup. That pop boy-band is officially a Christian ministry...or so Kevin Litrell says:

This is awesome...Kevin Litrell giving his "testimony" on the Hour of Power.

After being in the US for almost a year, I've learned that only a Southern Baptist can look back on a decade plus career with a group like the Backstreet Boys and refer to it as "a ministry". Oh man! (Why is it that every "Christian" celebrity (Media celeb, not celebrity reformed pastor) has weaksauce theology and is somewhere on the spectrum between "fruity" and "psycho"?)

So, let's analyse the "ministry" of the Backstreet Boys and discover...

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO THE BACKSTREET BOYS:

...No, I cannot do this. Their lyrics are so absolutely stupid, and I mean, consider this one song "Last Night You Saved My Life" from the album Never Gone:

Yeah, yeah, yeah
Yeah, yeah, yeah

Its 3 am, I can't sleep
Too late to call this is not like me
But I'm still lifted from the tattoo on the small of your back
The angle of your chin when you were looking back

See, god you're beautiful and I'm still coming down
I'd like a one-night stand, that had to stick around
But I'm still floating on the perfume you left on my sheets
I haven't changed a thing since your goodbye to me

Tonight I stare out the window
Knowing I'll never again be alone

Last night you changed my life
And I was stuck in the moment that you kissed me the first time
Last night you saved my life with your love
Saved my life
Last night you saved my life

Your fingernails running down my spine
All day I hear your voice like velvet in my mind
It's like I knew you all my life even though we just met
My children in your eyes, something you don't expect

I had to stop myself from calling all day long
I'm glad you called me first, I wanted to be strong
But you were laughing because I answered after just one ring
I tried to play it off
But you knew everything

Last night you changed my life
And I was stuck in the moment that you kissed me the first time
Last night you saved my life with your love
Saved my life (saved my life)
Last night you saved my life with your love

Last night you saved my life (saved my life)
Last night you saved my life

Ohh yeah

I stare at the sky looking for the morning sun
Can't wait to tell you you're the only one
Last night you saved my life

And I was stuck in the moment you kissed me the first time
Last night you saved my life with your love
Saved my life (saved my life)
Last night you changed my life

I mean, COME ON! Backstreet is "a ministry"? Let's take a quick look at this song:

1. "god" (not "God") IS mentioned in the song, but not in any sort of worshipping sense.

2. He received salvation from having a one night stand? Excuse me? Not even Scientology has theology THIS bad!

3. She left perfume on his sheets? HELLO?

Doesn't the adulteress in Proverbs 7 say:

I have covered my bed
with colored linens from Egypt.

I have perfumed my bed
with myrrh, aloes and cinnamon. - Proverbs 7:16-17

*******************
I was going to go on and on with this, but I noticed a whole bunch of parallels with that song and Proverbs 6+7. Essentially, the Backstreet Boys are The Fool from the book of Proverbs. That's them. They're that fool! They're singing songs about basking in their own lusts with a seductress ("tatoo on the small of your back"? Hello? Isn't that called the "tramp stamp"?) and relishing in it with tight-knit harmonies.

I used to laugh at the Backstreet Boys and think they were dumb. Now I'm calling them, and every other boy band "The Fool". (Though I also like "Ev'il Campanile" [pronounced "eveel campaneel"] which is a combination of a Hebrew and Italian word [and the Italian word is mispronounced, I know!] that combine to mean "Fool's Belltower")

Here's their song:

"Let all who are simple come in here! Stolen water is sweet; food eaten in secret is delicious!" (Proverbs 9:16-17)

Proverbs also talks about where all the boy bands end up when they have one night stands with stamped tramps:

But little do they know that the dead are there, that her guests are in the depths of the grave. " (Proverbs 9:18)

So I'll no longer refer to the Backstreet Boys not as "a bunch of fools" but as "THE fool". ("Man, those guys are the fool!" That should get conversations going! HA!)

Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theologian

A Public Health Announcement from the Armchair Theologian

2007-04-04T11:03:00.000-07:00

Man! I'm sitting in class right now, listening to a lecture on the Psalms, but my stomach is singing this song:

ARGH! The struggle between the Spirit (my will to listen about teaching about the scriptures) and the Flesh (my rumbling tummy) continues. And as I'm writing this, a huge jerk beside me pulled out a tupperware container and is currently eating some yummy looking stuff. Curse you Esparanza!

Remember to have breakfast kids; it will make a difference in work and at school. Your kindergarten teacher was right. It's the most important meal of the day.

Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theologian

It's Another KU Cop-Out Post!

2007-04-02T03:15:00.000-07:00

Yes siree! Lazy McLazy Pants here, posting an awesome vid! William Lane Craig, dropping bombs on the topic that he knows best. If any of my readers do not know these facts and have them committed to memory, watch this video and take notes. The bodily resurrection of Christ is possibly the most important apologetic argument out there, and something that every Christian should be able to toss out at a moments notice.

I hope that this ku stuff encourages my 5 readers. I love it when Dub L.C. (his rap name) drops bombs like this. He's the shibbie. (Unfortunately, he kinda goes nuts when he starts talking about God's relationship to time and eternity, but you can't have it all! HA!)

Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theologian

HULK SMASH SISSY PREACHING!

2007-03-23T00:45:00.000-07:00

Okay. I will admit that being at Grace Community Church and dating a girl at Bethlehem has brought me into the "nouveaux reformed" circles and I really like these circles. People in these circles have good theology, actual preaching, mature faith and skill at living (i.e. wisdom). I've had people say "Man, you should meet so-and-so, he's/she's such a godly man/woman" and they actually were godly. (honestly a new experience.)

But, I have also forgotten how bad things get out there and how horrible some people have it, as far as pastors and teachers go. I learned that some buddies from Briercrest are coming through SoCal this weekend and are playing at a local, famous megachurch. Being admittedly not super familiar with this certain church, I decided to check it out. I am currently half watching a streaming video of their service from February 11, 2007 and I cannot believe this ding-dong stand up comedy is somehow supposed to be passing for preaching.

The text is John 17 (whole chapter) and over the course of the hour, he commented for approximately 1 minute on verse 5-9, 11 and verse 24. The whole rest of it was his own completely speculative heresies regarding demonology, the hypostatic union, the trinity, eschatology, missions, soteriology, how salvation is a free gift where "we've got to do our part of the bargain" and he whole end of salvation is getting a weight lifted off our shoulders and going to heaven (*barf*) and every other Christian doctrine. Plus, he's spent around 50% of the time making jokes about AT&T, the silly things kids pray for, his wife's computer, his temper (which is somehow excused), his bad fashion sense, etc. It's honestly stand up comedy that makes a shift onto spiritual topics and then builds up to him getting intense and trying to be convicting.

And according to him, what does John 17:24 mean? According to this guy, it means that life is short and we're on earth for a short season, but "while you're here, while you're passing through earth, could you be my witness?" (direct quote) and "listen to what this anonymous person wrote...this isn't biblical, but I think it applies". Commentary on biblical passages from pop music that talks about how God is "crazy about you"? (Or it would, if the song was sung about God's love for us and not some boy band's love for a girl...sheesh!) What the heck? Talk about NOT seeing the forrest for the trees?

Few things make me actually angry, but garbage psuedo preaching and shallow eisegetical teaching are two of them. Any preacher who stands up in front of thousands and tells jokes, peddles their opinion with prooftexting and doesn't think the Bible is important enough to pay serious attention to is in horrid peril. I honestly fear for that guy having to face an angry God one day and I am so angry that his congregation is getting fed rotten brussel sprouts and told that they're getting steak. If the word of God is not worth actually studying closely and preaching precisely, why even waste time with it?

I cannot fathom someone trying to shepherd the people of God and spending time studying the Bible. Then again, I know that pastors like this don't really study the Bible. From experience I know that many preachers like this spend like 4-6 hours on sermon prep...and you can definitely tell when he says something as idiotic as "The word 'keep' in verse 11 comes from a Greek word which means 'to keep or guard'"...(The word "keep" means "keep"? sheesh...)

Watching that absolute gong ringing dung makes me both really sad for him and his people (for he probably doesn't know any better and his people most likely will never encounter anything different) but also just kranking to prep all the more and only preach the text when I preach at USC on the 19th or April.

"Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth." - 2 Tim 2:15

"In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry." - 2 Tim 4:1-5

Let it rip.

Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theologian

The big MAMMA!

2007-03-20T17:58:00.000-07:00

Well, today I tackled the big mamma, the mother of all questions, the question that Craver and Lee Shelton and Wyatt and everyone else has been buggin' me about. Unfortunately, it's not here. It's over at TheoAmigos. Since I haven't put anything up there in like a millenia, I decided to post it over there. So, go here to read my most recent crazy and flaming heresy. Enjoy!

Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theologian

Some interesting biblical resources on Mormonism...

2007-03-19T23:20:00.000-07:00

While I was in the researching mode, I found some interesting stuff on them lovable Mormon rapscallions!

1. The Institute for Religious Research has some fantastic articles and plenty of original source documented resources on understanding and apologetically tackling Mormonism.

Definitely also check out the link entitled "Where does it say that?", which has scans of original source Mormon Documents that present many of the heresies that they try to deny.

2. Utah Lighthouse Ministries is possibly the most scholarly and comprehensive sites dealing with Mormonism. They have several books, posted in their entirety, on their site free of charge.

3. The Mormonism Research Ministry is another great site with tons of info. Lots of articles and concrete stuff to help you sort through your next encounter with LDS missionaries.

Now, there are tons of other resources out there, but a majority of them will either quote these three or have the same data as they do.

Also, if you want to do some of your own research, The Book of Mormon, Doctrines and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price are all entirely available online.

Mormons are so confused and so lost, and I definitely have a spot in my heart for them. I mean, consider this quote (from here) that explains what was accomplished by Christ on the cross:

" On the cross, He allowed Himself to die. His body was then laid in a tomb until He was resurrected and became "the firstfruits of them that slept" (1 Corinthians 15:20). Through His death and Resurrection, He overcame physical death for us all.

Jesus Christ redeems all people from the effects of the Fall. All people who have ever lived on the earth and who ever will live on the earth will be resurrected and brought back into the presence of God to be judged (see 2 Nephi 2:5–10; Helaman 14:15–17). Through the Savior's gift of mercy and redeeming grace, we will all receive the gift of immortality and live forever in glorified, resurrected bodies.

Although we are redeemed unconditionally from the universal effects of the Fall, we are accountable for our own sins..."

Anything wrong with that?

And Mormons try to pass themselves off as Christians...?!?

Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theologian

Some interesting biblical resources on Islam...

2007-03-11T22:03:00.000-07:00

Jay Smith is an apologist for Christianity and an evangelist to Moslems in Britain. If anyone is interested in hearing what a learned and experience Christian (personal friends with Mark Dever from Capitol Hill Baptist Church) has to say about Islam, this is definitely something to check out. I'm guessing this guy will be murdered by the Moslems within the near future, so check him out while he's still around. Some terribly interesting resources folks! Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theologian

The Age Old Answer!

2007-02-21T13:30:00.000-08:00

"...And this leads us to the age old question; 'which came first, the chicken or the egg?' Well, we know that the chicken came first because the Bible tells us that the chicken came first!"

- Dr John Street

HA! I always learn something interesting in Biblical Counseling class. Talk about practical theology! Awesome! Until Next Time,

The Amrchair Theologian

Some Resources on Hell...

2007-02-21T12:01:00.000-08:00

Well, I got back from Resolved (which makes YouthQuake look like an absolute 3 goose gong show...I mean having preaching and doctrinal teaching at a youth conference? 3,500 Kids aren't interested in that, right? All teenagers want bands and events and entertainment, not edification and truth, right?) on Monday night and I'm beyond wiped out today, but I've had this on my heart all weekend and all last week.

If the MB Herald is any sort of indication, the Canadian MB Conference is going to Hell in a handbasket (which is ironic seeing that they're not sure if there's a Hell to go to).

That MB Herald disturbed me more than I realized, and something has to be done. There needs to be some sort of reformation in the MB Conference before it becomes so far gone that they're ordaining homosexuals and running across the countryside on prayer crusades for the purpose of fighting territorial demons.

What makes me the most frustrated is that I'm in another country and don't really have a position of power to do anything..

...And I've got class in 30 minutes and don't have the time to write a series of rebuttals of the recent MB Herald speculations on the nature and existence of Hell. But, if anyone is interested, here's a bunch of links to some solid stuff on Hell from guys who are a lot smarter than I am, as well as some of the biggest fish from throughout history (I added some links after class to fill out some of the history):

From the guys at www.Bible.org:
Article 1
Article 2
Article 3
Article 4

Some thoughts from Jonathan Edwards:
Article 5
Article 6
Article 7
Article 8
Article 9 - A whole work called "The End of the Wicked contemplated by the Righteous" (See sidebar for the chapters)

Some thoughts from Charles Spurgeon
Article 10
Article 11 - " Because this is a wicked age, it will not accept the idea of a real hell; and because it is hypocritical, it will speak of hell, but only with fictitious punishment."

Some thoughts from J.C. Ryle:
Article 12 - "What men do not like, they try hard not to believe." (I believe this is the quote of the day regarding this issue in the MB Conference!)

Some thoughts from John Piper:
Soundbyte 1 - Great stuff that's much along the lines of what I taught in Sunday School in 2005 regarding the love of God being glorified in the existence of hell.
Article 13
Article 14

A.W. Pink
Article 16

Augustine:
Article 17 - This is a link to chapter 21 of Augustine's "City of God" (just hit the "next" button to page through it...)

Thomas Aquinas
Article 18 - Some thoughts on eternal punishment from Summa Theologica

Phillip Schaff
Article 19 - " Everlasting Punishment of the wicked always was, and always will be the orthodox theory. It was held by the Jews at the time of Christ, with the exception of the Sadducces, who denied the resurrection. It is endorsed by the highest authority of the most merciful Being, who sacrificed his own life for the salvation of sinners. Consequently the majority of the fathers who speak plainly on this terrible subject, favor this view."

Alfred Edersheim
Article 20 - Comments on the beliefs of the Pharisees at the time of Christ.

John Owen
Article 21 - "But that innumerable souls shall to eternity undergo the punishment due to their own sins, I hope needs, with Christians, no proving" (Check this too...)

John Gill
Article 22

Charles Finney
Article 23

Loraine Boettner
Article 24

Thomas A. Kempis
Article 25

Thomas Watson
Article 26

George Whitefield
Article 27

Richard Baxter
Article 28

Anyway, if anyone is interested in some biblical truth regarding this issue, I've done all the research work for you. Enjoy learning the good things of God, and don't let ignorance lead you into untruth and away from the glories of Christ. Eternal Suffering in Hell glorifies God more than if there was no Hell, or if people were only punished for a short time, or if they were destroyed in some cosmic blast furnace.

The bottom line is that some intellectuals in the MB Conference serve a god who's neither holy nor glorious. That god is not the God of the Bible and singing the "hermeneutical humility" song is only a rhetorical trap that self-worshiping intellectuals use to attempt to silence anyone that disagrees with them... The Bible is neither unclear nor uncertain on the existence of Hell and the eternal punishment of the lost, and both the present and past have plenty men of God who are clear and convicted on the issue.

Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theologian

More In Class Craziness...

2007-02-07T10:39:00.000-08:00

Yesterday I'm in a class after writing a brutal Hebrew exam, and I was tired...i.e. my brain was fried. Oh no.

Oh Yeah.

I was trying to concentrate and my imagination was running wild and going absolutely nuts. The prof was lecturing on Puritans and their baptismal practices and for some reason, I started thinking about Mary Poppins singing a song about baptism, if she was some sort of emergent church "baptismal omniformalist", allowing all formats and all baptismal doctrines at the same time (if she taugh infant, adult and senior citizen baptism, and if she sprinkled, poured and immersed, depending on her mood and what church she was in. Plus, it was and was not an evidence of salvation/method of regeneration). I honestly don't have a clue where this stuff comes from, but as I was trying to pay attention my brain started singing a Mary Poppins song on Baptism. Remember "Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious"? Well, my Puritan, wacky baptismal theology Mary Poppins was singing a different tune:

It's...
Pedoanageriatricsprinklepourimmersion
It's baptismal doctrine for churches of emersion
With babies, adults, seniors it verifies conversion
Pedoanageriatricsprinklepourimmersion!

verse:

I grew up in a Lutheran church
Without Baptists for friends
Our baptismal differences
I could not comprehend
Then I thought "Our traditions,
Why doesn't someone blend?"
And now I immerse infants
And I sprinkle full grown men!

Un-diddle-iddle-iddle
Un-diddle-eye!
Un-diddle-iddle-iddle
Un-diddle-eye!

verse 2:

If you are having problems
Trying to serve the Lord
And with the local churches
There's baptismal discord
With my new theology
You should climb aboard
Embrace my new found doctrine,
and dunk, sprinkle AND pour!

Un-diddle-iddle-iddle
Un-diddle-eye!
Un-diddle-iddle-iddle
Un-diddle-eye!

verse 3:

If you think disunity
with churches isn't fun.
And thoughts of pedobaptism
make you just scream and run.
You could stop the fighting
And you could baptize none
Or kick open the doors of church
And baptize everyone!

*****************************
I don't know where this craziness comes from. I hope it entertains someone out there though. This has gotta be the most bizarre blog post from me in months. Ha! Until Next Time,

The Amrchair Theologian

I hate to say "I told you so" but...

2007-02-04T19:26:00.001-08:00

..."I told you so". I've been thinking that for at least 6 years regarding the Canadian Mennonite Brethren Conference, but now I'm saying it. Ever since we abandoned our hermeneutics and our doctrine of scripture, we've been slowly drifting from our own historic theological orthodoxy.

We've gone from cessationist to charismatic (or Mennocostal, as we like to call it). That's not so much the problem as seeing that I've never had a conversation with anyone, including every Mennonite pastor that I've ever talked to, who could back it up from scripture with a position that withstood any amount of scrutiny.

We've gone from complimentarian to confused, pretending that the Bible is somewhat, if not totally, unclear on the issue of male and female roles in the church. And after the study conference in Calgary, I mentioned to a bunch of folks that our steps away from God's truth was about to become a walk away from God's truth...

...and I was fully wrong. Our walk has become a run. After having some struggles with getting my subscription to the MB Herald sent to Burbank, I finally got my January issue yesterday. I looked at the cover and saw the "What's Hell really like?" on the cover. I was expecting some articles on defending the important issue of Hell against the theological attack of our modern era. I mean, we are the 'conservative' ones who don't smoke, drink and play cards right?

Instead I got Pierre Gilbert's crack smoking article and Marshall Janzen's usual "I'm so smart" tirade.

For those that didn't read it, Pierre Gilberts' article went like this:

1. Hell is perceived as the "outworking of the overactive imagination of medieval visionaries" and makes us look crazy.
2. The notion of a loving God sending people to a place of eternal punishment is offensive to our sensibilities and our logic.
3. The notion of having Hitler or Stalin in Heaven is equally offensive but does finite sin should not require infinite punishment (and he subtly comments on how people are sent to Hell due to their sin natures and not actual individual sins).
4. Heaven is a place of 'getting close to God' and our 'God proximity' will make us happy and completely virtuous
5. God has now forgiven the entire world through Christ, but not everyone chooses him (though they are fully able to).
6. Because of mankind's "stinky" nature, they cannot stand being near God, therefore they want to flee from him because he "smells bad".
7. Hell isn't so much a place as "a condition where everything that makes life enjoyable disappears - love, compassion, intelligence, joy, purpose, freedom, the ability to make decisions".
8. It's possible to escape Hell with one tiny decision, and everyone should.
9. The editor Laura Kalmar also adds an her two cents to the end, commenting that "contemporary theologians disagree over whether hell is eternal punishment, or a temporary state in which God's judgement is executed until repentance and redemption are exercised. They also debate over whether hell is a literal place, or a term describing an existence apart from God".

Now I know the Mennonites are a growingly liberal bunch, but that article surprised even me. I cannot believe such a load of skubalon was printed in the MB Herald, though it most obviously was. Not only is that anthropocentric far beyond being any sort of Arminian view of salvation (he's one step away from being a universalist, and Laura sounds like she's entertaining the idea), but I just cannot believe that they cannot even agree as to whether or not Hell exists. In Marshall's article, he argues for anihilationism, that Hell is essentially a large blast furnace where souls are destroyed. What's worse is that Marshall tries to argue that the doctrine of Hell is a hinderance to the gospel and therefore needs to be re-evaluated (I hear Pagans don't like the "sin talk" much too Marshall...*sigh*). I'm torn between crying my eyes out and wanting to punch him in the face for his arrogance.

Man! How fast have we gone from "We're not sure what the Bible says about male and female roles in the church" to "We don't know what to make about what the Bible says about Hell"?

Looking at church history, I'm guessing that the next issue is universalism, and after that we'll be talking about homosexuals and the church (along with evangelism and the gospel), and most likely both will occur in the next decade (though I'm guessing 5 years is more realistic). After that, we'll start attacking Christ and question the importance of the atonement, with "all this blood talk", much like the Canadian United church was doing a few years ago.

I used to fear that when I come back to Canada, I'd have trouble finding a decent Mennonite church to pastor in. Now I'm beginning to think I'll come back as a missionary...or a Southern Baptist.

Apparently these days my blood has to boil before I begin blogging. Doh! I've got Hebrew to study and I've got other homework to do too! Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theologian

Two places where I've been...

2007-02-02T18:54:00.000-08:00

For those of you that know me, you know that I kinda have my circles that I travel in and I'm pretty regular. I also haven't been posting here much as of recent, but that's more because I've been posting other places. You may be entertained by some of the goings on (and my aggressive/rude interaction with Mr. Hairless Chimp) at CW's blog or at a rather difficult to follow rant about "falling in love" at the Blog of the Amazing Daasy. Anyway, there's some links to stupid things I've said lately. If they don't entertain you, my career as the world's worst blogger will come to a crushing end. Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theologian

Memoirs of Minneapolis...

2007-01-26T17:40:00.000-08:00

Well, seeing that I got back from my trip to Minneapolis at 3:00am, and 4 hours later was in Hebrew Exegesis, I've kinda not recovered from the last two weeks whirlwind (or total lack of sleep) until now. Add to that the ongoing shenanigans of my birthday hijinks for the wonderful lady in my life, as well as all the last minute reading/working I've had to do with the two classes that released the syllabi the day I got back, and I've been busy. I've obviously not been blogging and I've also not even been reading blogs of all my friends and foes for a while.

But I as I am kinda getting back on track with life and school, things are approaching normal. I'm currently still working on something for my eternally ongoing series on cessationism, but I learned some new information that has lead to one of the biggest thought projects that I've had in several years (some new things regarding biblical prophecy which require significant amounts of biblical synthesis to verify and formulate...and may lead to a thesis...), but should be good when it's done. (maybe another few weeks, depending on schedule...). Anyway, once I'm done with all this cessationism stuff, I'm going to organize it together into a large (100+ page) Word document or PDF file that I'll make available. That's a LONG way off though (think summer 2008, based on predictions from my current schedule). Anyway, I haven't forgot; I'm just far beyond busy (and finding a spare 15 hours in my week for some intense research is difficult).

As for Minneapolis, I'm glad to be able to say "I came, I saw, I met the Frank". Yup. I done saw Frank Martens. Oh, and Jen Daas, and Heidi & Ben Priesler, and Ben Oetken, and Gretchen "The Bruce" Lee, and all the people in Jen Hibst's small group, and Mr. & Mrs. Hibst, Alissa Hibst, Emily Hibst, and of course my girlfriend: Lady Jennifer Hibst (Or soon to be..). I even saw the infamous Micheal T and Jeff, the Familiar (one day I will have a LOT of fun with that dude). I must admit, they're all pretty cool and Jen and I have very parallel sets of friends. I'm quite fond of many of the B-Bappers that I met and will enjoy spending time with them again sometime, maybe in March (fingers crossed!).

I didn't get as much work done in Minneapolis as I planned (what else is new?) but I did get lost several times with a local sitting right beside me! HA! Beyond that, I got to partly help a family move to a new house and had a random stranger spend several minutes trying to explain to me that I "look like that guy" (also, a common occurance for me for some reason). I saw the head office for Best Buy (I call it "God's Shuriken") and I did not go to the mall of America (too many bad memories of leather pants, metrosexual men buying Oakley shades and super greasy mall food...*shiver*). I got some snow the last night I was there and it was pretty great. Feels a lot like Calgary in Minneapolis. I actually like it there.

Oh, and I ate at both Dairy Queen and A&W, neither of which is anywhere in California (though their websites claim that they are...said websites tell LIES!!)

So yeah. Just a little post on my trip to Minneapolis and a tiny update on where I'm at. Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theologian

This is the message for Sweetie...

2007-01-25T15:49:00.000-08:00

...Just kidding. You think I would make it THIS easy? Dream on! Keep searching baby...and good luck!

Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theologian

Another Cop out Post...

2007-01-11T12:54:00.000-08:00

Okay...Not REALLY a cop out post, but kinda. Here's a little news for y'all:

I'm having a holiday in Minneapolis right now, hanging out with The Sweetie, Vas is Daas?, Gretchen "The Bruce" Lee, Benjo Kazoui, Frankolantern and the Abominable Sparkly Building. Them Bethlehem Bunches of Oats are a cool brand of jeans, and I've enjoyed their company immensely. And yes, one of them is called "The Sweetie". In case someone out there hasn't already figured it out, I'm out of Midian. I'm also supposed to go pick her up at work soon, so stories and pictures to come. Anyway, I'm dating the awesomest girl in the world. HA!

Oh, and on Sunday I'm going to church at John Piper's church...after like 3 failed tries! YES!

Oh, and watch for me in the March/April issue of HM Magazine. I'm writing album reviews for them now, and hopefully I'll be contributing concert reviews and whatnot in the future. Maybe I'll get to interview some of the guys from some of the bands that were in the most recent issue of Revolver Magazine's article on Christian Metal...cause some of them need to talk to SOMEONE about spiritual matters... Just go to your local 7-11, read the interview and prepare to cry at what passes for "Christian band" these days. If you're on a "Christian" label, or claim to be a "Christian band" (not that anyone claims that anymore), you can believe anything and get away with it.

There's no "b" in "Jesus" dudes.

Okay. Off to pick up the girlfriend from work. Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theologian

A Cop Out Post!

2007-01-04T21:06:00.000-08:00

DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT A REAL POST. THIS IS SOME RAMBLING FROM ANOTHER SITE THAT I'M POSTING HERE BECAUSE I TYPED IT FOR THAT OTHER SITE AND WAS TOO LAZY TO POST THE OTHER STUFF I WAS GOING TO POST ON HERE. ENJOY:

***********************************************************************************

Faith is a logical extension of historical or empirical fact into the non-historical (i.e. future) or non-empirical (i.e. not physical...or "spiritual" realm).

That's why in the Old Testament, God always defined himself by what he did. (As well as in the New)

In Genesis 15:7 God defines himself to Abraham as "I am the LORD, who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to take possession of it."

Then, on the basis of that historical occurrence Abraham asks how he will have assurance of God's promise that he will take possession of the land. (verse 8)

Then, in verses 12 to 19, God makes a covenant with Abraham in order to solidify Abraham's trust in God's promise.

God made an actual covenant with Abraham, in history, and did it so that Abraham would have something concrete to look back to and place his belief upon.

Same thing goes for Moses, the Kings, the Prophets, and ultimately Christ. God is a promise making and covenant making God, and on the basis of those real historical promises and covenants to I trust him.

Faith is trusting God's word, not believing whatever one wants to believe regardless of evidence. That's as biblical a definition of faith as I know how to deliver.

All facts become evidence upon interpretation, and what's really in question here is who's system of interpretation holds up to scrutiny, especially on the question of it's ability to verify, or not verity (as the case may be), the existence of a non-empirical being.

The thing is that the problem isn't with the Bible, or the evidence, or science. The problem is with the heart of man which has rebelled against God's moral law and MUST supress the truth of the data, seeing it as evidence as anything other than God.

A good example of this is in 2 Peter 3:1-14, where Peter talks about the flood of Noah's time and says:

"Dear friends, this is now my second letter to you. I have written both of them as reminders to stimulate you to wholesome thinking. I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles.

First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.

Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness.

So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him."

Paul makes a simple argument:

1. People will (all throughout history) come and mock the idea of a global flood on the basis of uniformitarian predictions regarding the past (verse 4)

2. They forget the flood "deliberately"; on purpose. (verse 5-6)

3. Because if God never judge the sin of the earth BEFORE, he'll never do it AGAIN (verse 7)

4. But God's slowness shows patience because he's giving people ample time to turn from sin (verse 8-9)

5. And judgment is CERTAINLY coming (verse 10)

6. And because of the certainty of the coming judgment, based on the historical occurrence of a global flood where God judged sin, we should live upright and righteous lives (verse 11-13) and "make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him" (verse 14)

*****So what?******

Well, if the bible is true when it talks about the flood actually occurring as a real event in history, then what it says about the purpose of that flood (Genesis 6:5-13 - God wiped out the entire earth due to their excessive wickedness) may also be true.

If the flood really happened, it's not JUST a geographic oddity. It also means that there is a holy and righteous God who judges sin.

And Peter makes the connection that if God judged the sin of the world ONCE, killing everyone because they actually deserved death (for Romans 6:23 declares that those who sin actually earn the reward of death), then God could and may do it again.

So if the flood is a historical occurrence, it reveals something about God and it also gives historical precedent for another coming day of judgment.

The historic reality of a worldwide flood in Noah's day may be a little bit unsettling for a person who has disobeyed God's moral law.

If the flood didn't occur and the Bible is a load of crap, then do whatever you want and who cares.

BUT, if the flood DID occur and the Bible is true, then it has serious ramifications for every aspect of life.

So, in a biblical worldview, a person who desires to reject God's moral law MUST also reject God's self revelation in creation. They can NOT see evidence for God, anywhere, simply due to the moral implications of God's existence at all.

AND what's more is that the Bible clearly says that everyone in the world (myself included) desires to reject God's moral law (Romans 3:10-18, 3:23) AND that everyone in the world actively rejects the truth of creation's data and suppresses it, twisting it to suit with their own hearts that reject him (Romans 1:18-23).

And, if the Bible isn't true about the flood, or the creation account, or the existence of the Patriarchs or whatever else, then there's no historical precedent to believe what it reveals about Jesus Christ...and he's really what's important.

If the claims of the Old Testament are not true, then Christ's claims to be the Messiah are in question.

- Who knows if he really is "the way and the truth and the life" or that he's the only path to get to God (John 14:6)

- Who knows if "God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God"? (2 Corinthians 5:21)

- Who knows if "that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures (Old Testament)" or if "he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures (Old Testament)" (1 Corinthians 15:4)

- And ultimately "If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost." (1 Corinthians 15:13-18)

The crux of the matter is Christ, and Christ is inseparable from the historicity of every single letter of the Old Testament.

And:

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed." (John 3:16-20)

The Bible is true because Christ is truth, and the Bible is truth because Christ is true.

************************************************************************************

Ramble Ramble Ramble...anways, I hope that at least gets me out of purgatory with some people. HA! Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theologian

something COOL!

2006-12-25T13:28:00.000-08:00

I've always wondered about this stuff...what are CRAZY huge numbers called? My vocabulary had a huge gap in it between nonillion and google. Well, here's number names. A little cool tidbit of information to tickle your gray matter:

SI Prefix	Symbol	#	American Nomenclature
		0	zero
Yocto-	y	10^-24	septillionth
Zepto-	z	10^-21	sextillionth
Atto-	a	10^-18	quintillionth
Femto-	f	10^-15	quadrillionth
Pico-	p	10^-12	trillionth
Nano-	n	10^-9	billionth
Micro-	μ	10^-6	millionth
Centimilli-	cm	10^-5	hundred thousandth
Decimilli-	dm	10^-4	ten thousandth
Milli-	m	10^-3	thousandth
Centi-	c	10^-2	hundredth
Deci-	d	10^-1	tenth
		10⁰	one
		2	two
		3	three
		4	four
		5	five
		6	six
		7	seven
		8	eight
		9	nine
Deka-	dk	10¹	ten
Hecto-	h	10²	hundred
Kilo-	k	10³	thousand
Myria-	ma	10⁴	ten thousand
Mega-	M	10⁶	million
		10⁸	hundred million
Giga-	G	10⁹	billion
Giga is also pronounced /jigi/, as in: 1.21 gigawatts! (from Back to the Future)
Tera-	T	10¹²	trillion
Peta-	P	10¹⁵	quadrillion
Exa-	E	10¹⁸	quintillion
Zetta-	Z	10²¹	sexillion
Yotta-	Y	10²⁴	septillion
		10²⁷	octillion
		10³⁰	nonillion
		10³³	decillion
		10³⁶	undecillion
		10³⁹	duodecillion
		10⁴²	tredecillion
		10⁴⁵	quattuordecillion
		10⁴⁸	quindecillion
		10⁵¹	sexdecillion
		10⁵⁴	septdecillion
		10⁵⁷	octodecillion
		10⁶⁰	novemdecillion
		10⁶³	vigintillion
		10⁶⁶	unvigintillion
		10⁶⁹	duovigintillion
		10⁷²	trevigintillion
		10⁷⁵	quattuorvigintillion
		10⁷⁸	quinvigintillion
		10⁸¹	sexvigintillion
		10⁸⁴	septvigintillion
		10⁸⁷	octovigintillion
		10⁹⁰	novemvigintillion
		10⁹³	trigintillion
		10⁹⁶	untrigintillion
		10⁹⁹	duotrigintillion
		10¹⁰⁰	googol (10 duotrigintillion)
		10¹⁰²	tretrigintillion
		10¹⁰⁵	quattuortrigintillion
		10¹⁰⁸	quintrigintillion
		10¹¹¹	sextrigintillion
		10¹¹⁴	septtrigintillion
		10¹¹⁷	octotrigintillion
		10¹²⁰	novemtrigintillion
		10¹²³	quardragintillion
		10¹²⁶	unquardragintillion
		10¹²⁹	duoquardragintillion
		10¹³²	trequardragintillion
		10¹³⁵	quattuorquardragintillion
		10¹³⁸	quinquardragintillion
		10¹⁴¹	sexquardragintillion
		10¹⁴⁴	septquardragintillion
		10¹⁴⁷	octoquardragintillion
		10¹⁵⁰	novemquardragintillion
		10¹⁵³	quinquagintillion
		10¹⁵⁶	unquinquagintillion
		10¹⁵⁹	duoquinquagintillion
		10¹⁶²	trequinquagintillion
		10¹⁶⁵	quattuorquinquagintillion
		10¹⁶⁸	quinquinquagintillion
		10¹⁷¹	sexquinquagintillion
		10¹⁷⁴	septquinquagintillion
		10¹⁷⁷	octoquinquagintillion
		10¹⁸⁰	novemquinquagintillion
		10¹⁸³	sexagintillion
		10¹⁸⁶	unsexagintillion
		10¹⁸⁹	duosexagintillion
		10¹⁹²	tresexagintillion
		10¹⁹⁵	quattuorsexagintillion
		10¹⁹⁸	quinsexagintillion
		10²⁰¹	sexsexagintillion
		10²⁰⁴	septsexagintillion
		10²⁰⁷	octosexagintillion
		10²¹⁰	novemsexagintillion
		10²¹³	septuagintillion
		10²¹⁶	unseptuagintillion
		10²¹⁹	duoseptuagintillion
		10²²²	treseptuagintillion
		10²²⁵	quattuorseptuagintillion
		10²²⁸	quinseptuagintillion
		10²³¹	sexseptuagintillion
		10²³⁴	septseptuagintillion
		10²³⁷	octoseptuagintillion
		10²⁴⁰	novemseptuagintillion
		10²⁴³	octogintillion
		10²⁴⁶	unoctogintillion
		10²⁴⁹	duooctogintillion
		10²⁵²	treoctogintillion
		10²⁵⁵	quattuoroctogintillion
		10²⁵⁸	quinoctogintillion
		10²⁶¹	sexoctogintillion
		10²⁶⁴	septoctogintillion
		10²⁶⁷	octooctogintillion
		10²⁷⁰	novemoctogintillion
		10²⁷³	nonagintillion
		10²⁷⁶	unnonagintillion
		10²⁷⁹	duononagintillion
		10²⁸²	trenonagintillion
		10²⁸⁵	quattuornonagintillion
		10²⁸⁸	quinnonagintillion
		10²⁹¹	sexnonagintillion
		10²⁹⁴	septnonagintillion
		10²⁹⁷	octononagintillion
		10³⁰⁰	novemnonagintillion
		10³⁰³	centillion
		10⁶⁰³	ducentillion
		10⁹⁰³	trecentillion
		10^10¹⁰⁰	googolplex

The information was found here, just so you know where I plagarized it from. LOL! Enjoy this tidbit of cool number stuff. Learning cool stuff is fun! Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theologian.

Merry Christmas!

2006-12-25T11:45:00.000-08:00

Have a Beary Merry Christmas!

Until next time,

The Armchair Theologian!

Can barely blog...feel so weak...

2006-12-19T18:10:00.000-08:00

Due to a recent exposure to the horribly lethal, highly unstable and most likely illegal substance Rabanium, I've been under the weather with some pretty serious Rabanium poisoning. Just so you know, (you know who you are!) here's how I spent my afternoon:

(Nurse: "Well, I still don't see it! Let's put you through this thing a fourth time...Either this machine is broken or your brain IS missing!"

Me: "Whatever you say Bruce! Is somebody burning some cinnamon toast?")

Apparently some people think that they can just throw Rabanium around like it's play-doh. Not so. It's most likely not lethal and I should recover, but I'll be under the weather for a little while. PLEASE, do your part: Handle Rabanium responsibly and help control the pet population; have your pet spaid or nutored. Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theologian

And who says...

2006-12-16T17:39:00.000-08:00

...the Gay rights movement isn't headed anywhere? They all just want to have loving, homosexual relationships, right? The line of morally flexibile reasoning that they use stops at having responsibile, adult relationships, right?

Yeah. Well, here's hoping that I can offend MORE people than normal. I'll try to maximize the 'offensive content' on my blog...at least to some people. Doh. I wrote a paper about things heading in this direction around 7 years ago. Sadly, I'm right. I'm a prophet. Crap. Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theologian.

Can you say...

2006-12-16T03:05:00.000-08:00

OH SNAP? Just when you thought a Stryper Reunion Tour/Album/Whatever was enough, these guys decide to recruit Oz Fox and start putting out albumns again.

I want to hear "Black Snake" once live before I die. Oh please! Now if only Gary Lenaire, Guy Ritter, Victor Marcias, Ted Kirkpatrick and Erik Mendez had a little reunion and did a Hits from Psycho Surgery and Pathogenic Occular Dissonance tour.

There's a better chance of seeing the original members of Guns and Roses doing a reunion tour with 2 hour special on TBN than seeing the 1991 line up of Tourniquet ever playing together again. DANG IT! I'm knowing it will never happen, but wishing for a Delorean with a flux capacitor none the less. Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theologian

The super cool Antikythera Mechanism has been figured out!

2006-12-15T02:24:00.000-08:00

Okay! I'm finally back online. Here's something that I had sitting in draft state for a while, but I'm just posting it now! Anyway, more to come soon! It's the holidays and I have several things to pound out. Sorry I was gone so long, but school demanded the time! Enjoy:

Something interesting on another Oopart: the Antikythera Mechanism was recently "figured out".

Check this out. It's impossible for ancient cultures to have been actually technologically advanced, right?

Strange. Interesting. Just something cool. I hope you're entertained at how this one artifact apparently "throws a monkey wrench" into certain schools of historical theory. Man! If the data keeps changing like this, how will we ever know anything about anything? It's hopeless. I'm throwing in the towel and simply selling hot dogs. Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theologian

The disclaimer post...

2006-11-28T00:51:00.000-08:00

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

Good News!

2006-11-27T14:27:00.000-08:00

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

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

2006-11-23T21:41:00.000-08:00

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

Consider the following...

2006-11-21T00:33:00.000-08:00

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

Buddhists (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

Something really funny to me...

2006-11-20T14:41:00.000-08:00

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".

SO...

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,

TAT

News!

2006-11-18T11:39:00.000-08:00

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

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

2006-11-16T15:07:00.000-08:00

...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!

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

2006-11-15T13:54:00.000-08:00

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

Hmmm!

2006-11-15T10:48:00.000-08:00

"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

You Learn Something New Every DAY!

2006-11-13T02:19:00.000-08:00

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 advanced...so 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

Some Other News...

2006-11-11T18:56:00.000-08:00

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...

2006-11-11T18:49:00.000-08:00

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

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

2006-11-08T16:20:00.000-08:00

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

That's right ladies. I said it.

HOW YOU LIKE THEM APPLES?

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 things...lol)

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

The Armchair Theologian.

Weird Thought...

2006-11-08T15:00:00.000-08:00

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

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

2006-11-01T23:41:00.000-08:00

...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 church...it 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!

Chuck Norris on Chuck Norris Jokes...

2006-10-31T11:44:00.000-08:00

Thanks to Andrew Lily for this post. Here's Chuck Norris' take on the Chuck Norris joke phenomenon.

********************************************************************************

Have you heard of the "Chuck Norris Facts"?

There are more than 50,000 jokes making their way around the Internet that purport to be "facts" all playing off my movie roles as a "tough guy" and my history as a martial arts champion. But they aren't "jokes" to those who spread them – they're "facts."

Here are a few of my favorites:

"When the Boogeyman goes to sleep every night, he checks his closet for Chuck Norris."
"Chuck Norris doesn't read books. He stares them down until he gets the information he wants."
"Outer space exists because it's afraid to be on the same planet with Chuck Norris."

These "facts" have become a phenomenon – a fad spread mainly by young people of high school and college age. It's hard to explain why these things happen – how they take on a life of their own.

Naturally, over the past couple years as this wildfire has been raging, people have asked me, "What do you think of all this?"

My answer is always the same: Some are funny. Some are pretty far out. And, thankfully, most are just promoting harmless fun. (But be careful if you go searching for "Chuck Norris Facts" on the Internet, because some are just not appropriate for kids.)

Being more a student of the Wild West than the wild world of the Internet, I'm not quite sure what to make of the craze of "Chuck Norris Facts." It's quite surprising. I do know that boys will be boys, and I neither take offense nor take these things too seriously. I'm so grateful for my fans. Who knows, maybe these one liners will prompt some one to seek out the real facts about me and the beliefs that have shaped my life and my career.

While I have as much fun as anyone else reading and quoting them, let's face it, most "Chuck Norris Facts" describe someone with supernatural, superhuman powers. They're describing a superman character. And in the history of this planet, there has only been one real Superman. It's not me.

Let me illustrate using a few of the claims being made about me in the various lists of "Chuck Norris Facts":

Alleged Chuck Norris Fact: "Faster than a speeding bullet ... more powerful than a locomotive ... able to leap tall buildings in a single bound... yes, these are some of Chuck Norris' warm-up exercises."

I've got a bulletin for you, folks. I am no superman. I realize that now, but I didn't always. As six-time world karate champion and then a movie star, I put too much trust in who I was, what I could do and what I acquired. I forgot how much I needed others and especially God. Whether we are famous or not, we all need God. We also need other people.

If your whole life is spent trying to make money and you neglect the people important in your life, you will create an emptiness deep in your heart and soul. I know. I fell into that trap. I dedicated my whole life to fame and fortune. I had a huge hole in my heart and was miserable until I met my wife, Gena, who brought me back to the Lord.

Alleged Chuck Norris Fact: "There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of creatures Chuck Norris has allowed to live." It's funny. It's cute. But here's what I really think about the theory of evolution: It's not real. It is not the way we got here. In fact, the life you see on this planet is really just a list of creatures God has allowed to live. We are not creations of random chance. We are not accidents. There is a God, a Creator, who made you and me. We were made in His image, which separates us from all other creatures.

By the way, without him, I don't have any power. But with Him, the Bible tells me, I really can do all things – and so can you.

Alleged Chuck Norris Fact: "Chuck Norris' tears can cure cancer. Too bad he never cries. Ever."

There was a man whose tears could cure cancer or any other disease, including the real cause of all diseases – sin. His blood did. His name was Jesus, not Chuck Norris.

If your soul needs healing, the prescription you need is not Chuck Norris' tears, it's Jesus' blood.

Again, I'm flattered and amazed by the way I've become a fascinating public figure for a whole new generation of young people around the world. But I am not the characters I play. And even the toughest characters I have played could never measure up to the real power in this universe.

- Chuck Norris

***********************************************************************************
Here's the original link. Anyway, I guess I've gotta stop with the Chuck Norris jokes! DOH! Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theologian

My Testimony...

2006-10-27T16:15:00.000-07:00

Many people have asked me, from time, about how I came to know the Lord, and I often give them my "boring" testimony (mostly because I don't want to really tell them my "I am an idiot" testimont), but I've recently started to "hollywood up" my testimony in order to more greatly display the glory of God in my life. I've embelished some of the details, but only for the sake of evangelistic impact. So, here's my testimony for those that are interested...kinda:

I was raised in a Christian home by Christian parents. I made a committment to the Lord early on, but by the time I was 3 I had fallen into horrible apostasy. I was running "candy" in the sandbox at several local playgrounds, hustlin' hoes on the side with a kissing boothe in the basement of the unfinished house next door and running a Big Wheel chop shop out of my parents garage. I had a paper route monopoly over my entire subdivision, with dozens of newspaper carriers working my land, and not a single bottle went unreturned in my hood. I put the "Price" in "Fisher Price". I was rolling in mad cash, with controlling shares in Chuckie Cheeze, my very own OshKosh stocked closet and my own Ferarri in the garage (308 GTS), though my liscence was a decade and a half away. I used to pack a small callibre deringer in my huggies for protection, cause even back THEN people were straight COLD to the playa.

I had a bunch of high school muscle on the payroll and I ruled every elementary school in the city. We even collected dues from the Russian Mafia preschool, and put the fear of ME into those perpetrators at the Hillside Academy, the local Christian school.

I was 50 pounds of wicked in 40 pounds of flesh.

Then one day, after a life of sniffing adult strength tylenol off an etch-a-sketch and "playing doctor" with half the girls in the neighborhood, I realized that my life was empty. I threw aside my frivolous pleasures and went searching for answers. I travelled to Tibet and spend several months in a Buddhist monastary, studying Buddhism and Shaolin Kung Fu, but the emptiness in my heart remained. I travelled to Utah, getting into a Mormon Sunday School program for several months, but the emptiness in my heart remained. I came down to Hollywood and hung out with Chick Corea and John Travolta, talking about scientology. I dropped hundreds of thousands of dollars on auditing, but the emptiness in my heart remained. I tried every other religious system I could find, but the emptiness in my heart remained. Finally, as my chauffeur was taking me home, I stopped off at a VBS at a small country church.

I heard a great sermon on "sharing" and I broke down as the Lord got my heart. I was crying, but it wasn't the normal "I'm hungry" crying or the "I got a boo-boo" crying. It was spiritual crying, and my little 2 ounce heart was shattered. I understood that Jesus died for me and only in him could I leave my Pee-Diddy life behind. So, by the strength of God I left my gansta life, sold my various global real estate, donated the money to missions and committed myself to a selfless life of preschool piety and elementary school evangelism.

And though it's been sweat and tears, I and the Lord's been walking tall eva since...Word!

Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theologian

DOH!

2006-10-25T10:58:00.000-07:00

On a day that I'm fasting, of all things, I get talking about this with my prof in class. Apparently we both think Das Dutchmen Essenhaus is the greatest restaurant in the world. What is going on? Sheesh! ARGH! Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theologian

My Map Analogy...

2006-10-22T01:07:00.000-07:00

I often get into discussions, and even debates, with Christians and non-Christians about creationism/evolution in all it's various hues and colors, and one of the things that comes up the most is the tossing around of "evidence" on both sides of the debate. Many creationists throw their "evidence" at the evolutionist and can't understand why he cannot see the forrest for the trees, and vice versa. I also often use an illustration about the nature of data, explaining why this happens, by talking about a map and how maps work.

I've wanted to post this for a while (It's been in "draft" status...i.e. "forgotten about" for like a month) but I have never gotten around to it. So, this kinda comes out of nowhere, but I'm going to simply post a quote of something I said about "the map analogy" along with what I often use for examples. This also is my original thought, so rip me off all you want but I'd appreciate the honor of a citation if you rip me off. I was debating someone a little while ago on evolution; specifically the nature of data and evidence. We throw those terms around so loosely and more often then not mean "data" when we say "evidence". Anyway, instead of re-typing the whole thing, here's the quote:

************************************************************************************

Well, when I look at the data, I don’t see 4 billion years. But then again, that’s just it: DATA only becomes EVIDENCE when it’s interpreted.

Take a map for example. A map is a whole bunch of lines, shapes, colors and symbols. It could be a road map, a star map, a neurosynaptic map, etc. Now I may look at a map and say “hmmm. I don’t have a clue what this is but I’ll try to decipher it.” I could examine the red lines and think “Hmm, well, these look like roads” and suspect that they’re roads. I could look at the purple “x” marks and think “these must be railroad crossings”. I could go through all the symbols and sort through everything and apply my logic, as best I can, to decipher the map.

But how would I KNOW I was correct?

I’d have to check the legend. The legend is the “key” to the map, which tells me what the lines, colors, shapes and symbols mean.

And when I look at the legend, THEN I have a authoritative basis for interpreting the data of the map.

I’d suggest that if the Bible is true, then it’s the “legend” of creation. It’s the “key” to make sense of everything; and not just morally. The Bible gives us a general foundation for the operation of both ‘hard’ and ’soft’ science; it allows us to make sense of the "data" of the entire universe and see what's what and how it all fits together.

When the Evolutionist examines the map (creation) without refering to the legend (scripture), they misinterpret the data. They see things as they are, but their understanding is horribly misaligned.

So when an Evolutionist examines a fossil record, he thinks “well, I understand how silt is laid down and I understand how pressure works on soil (etc.)” Then, he takes his observations and attempts to make a working interpretation of the fossil record to understand it.

But without the solid foundation of scripture (they eyewitness account of the only living eyewitness), the understanding of the Evolutionist is misaligned.

When I, the Christian, look at the same data, I take the SAME observations. I remember how silt is laid down and I think about pressure, but then I also remember that God says something about a worldwide flood in Earth’s past where EVERYTHING died. Then, I factor in the flood and say “Hmm. This flood helps explain other things like polystratic fossils, or how a dead organism survives long enough to even BE fossilized without being eaten or decomposed.”

Working from the same data, but DIFFERENT foundations, the Evolutionist and the Creationist see different interpretations of the data. In the words of the analogy, we see the same map but we use DIFFERENT LEGENDS to understand the map. The Christian looks at the legend on the map and the non-Chrisitan simply rejects the legend on the map and makes a new legend up.

So I don’t see the earth as appearing 4 billion years old. I don’t see fossils giving the “illusion” of evolution. I see the earth looking several thousand years old and I see the fossils screaming at me that God judges sin.

WAY different conclusions!

************************************************************************************

So, heres some pictures and maps. See if you can tell what they all are without the legends, but there is NO wiggle room; you've gotta be either 100% or nothing. Know what the map is a map of, where it's from, what the colors mean, etc. I'm also putting them in order of difficulty, with the easiest one first. I'll eventually post the answers after a few days, and we'll see how close anyone can get to getting them all! I'd turn this into a contest, but I have now prizes or anything. BUT, the person who gets the closest can maybe choose the next post topic or something. HA! Have fun all!

Okay. Now that I'm back on "serious post" mode, this should make for some fun times! Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theologian

Something for Kirk Trew...

2006-10-19T01:10:00.000-07:00

All right my Homedawg. If a picture is worth a thousand words, Here's Webster's Collegiate Dictionary in pictures:

Yeah. Father Ted Crilley kicking Bishop Len Brennan in the butt...That will be funny until the day I die. Bed Time! Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theologian

...Nuff said...

2006-10-18T10:33:00.000-07:00

I'm sure they're all looking down from glory and smiling. Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theology

Grace upon Grace upon Grace upon Grace...

2006-10-15T23:05:00.000-07:00

50 years ago, Grace Community Church opened it's doors for the first time. There were 27 people there, and they originally met in a home. Evenatually they bought some farmland (which is now downtown...lol) and built a church on the land. In 1969 a 29 year old seminary graduate applied for the pastoral position, but he had some interesting conditions:

1. He wanted 30 hours a week for study (because he was unwaveringly convicted to exposit the bible to the congregation)
2. no talk about salary (he figured if God wanted him there, God would provide)

The congregation agreed (especially to the first, which by today's standards sounds really strange) and John F. MacArthur Jr. preached his first sermon. Apparently he used to talk a mile a minute, but 37 years later some of the founding members agree that he's gotten better.

Now that little church of 27 is somewhere around 8,000-8,500 and their worldwide influence is simply staggering...but I'm not going to shoot off all the numbers about tens of millions of teaching tapes, or books, or dozens of schools they're started. Tonight what really impressed me was going out for burgers with some of the college kids from the Bible Study I'm co-leading (as of this week...yippee!) and sitting back and listening the inevitable talk about "relationships" turn into a 4-woman lecture (to 4 men) about "practical techniques to get things off the ground" (i.e. - how to tell "if she likes you" and where to go from there...).

Now for those Moose Javians, Toontowners, C-Towners, PGers and Edmontonians who've ever been on my receiving end of the lessons of beauty, romance, flirting, propriety and the biblical nature of relationships, you all know that I have a few ideas about all that stuff (someone in Victoria just laughed). Some of you have got the "relational continuim" talk. Some of you have had the "Trinity and submission" talk and some of you have had the "God's shopping list" talk.

I didn't give any of those talks tonight. The girls all beat me to it. I was not too shocked, but definitely delighted at how the fruits of one man's 37 year ministry of simply teaching the Bible, week in and week out, has actually made a bunch of college girls wise. They got it. Not only that, but they talked appropriately to the guys; not as stupid men but as brothers in the Lord who need help understanding some very difficult subject matter. There was joking, but basically no condescension. There was bluntness, but not impropriety. There was conversation without flirting. I wouldn't say that ministry here is hard, it is actually harder; just not in the way that I'm used to. Instead of spending a majority of my time giving the right answers I've got to concentrate on setting the right example. A majority of kids at Grace Community Church already know the right answers; they are looking for confirmation from leadership more than anything. (Do they really believe that and does it really work?)

I remember sitting in a restaurant, several months before I left Canada, and having the same talk with several women who were, on average, probably 7 years older than the girls I was listening to tonight (and no...none of them read this blog, in case you think it's you). The women at the restaurant were the "godly" women of their churches, and they basically didn't see how the scripture taught much on relationships, short of 2 Corinthians 6:14-16 (i.e. "date a Christian guy and don't forget to pray!"). Absolutely no understanding of the relationship between sufficiency and efficaciousness of scripture and relationships. No understanding of God's trinitarian example of love and submission. No understanding of the straightforward biblical didactic passages on qualities that God esteems in a godly women (though most of them had read Proverbs 31, they all thought it basically mean "Be a Chrisitian Martha Stewart"). Lots of disjointed and jumbled bible trivia, but no coherent biblical worldview.

I was contemplating how different two groups of women, both from "Christian" circles, see what is arguably the most common conversation topic among 20-somethings. One sees the Bible giving some "good ideas" about relationships, here and there, where as another sees the Bible as giving "clear teaching" all throughout the Bible that can be understood and synthesized into a whole. What was the main difference? A man who understood, in 1969, that 2 Timothy 4:2-5 was a command, not a suggestion...and 2 Timothy 4:2-5 makes a serious difference to the lives of college-aged women.

And God is gracious. He grants wisdom and maturity to those who feed upon his word.

πασα γραφη θεοπνευστος και ωφελιμος προς διδασκαλιαν προς ελεγμον προς επανορθωσιν προς παιδειαν την εν δικαιοσυνη
ινα αρτιος η ο του θεου ανθρωπος προς παν εργον αγαθον εξηρτισμενος

Never let up. Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theologian

Check it out!

2006-10-13T21:02:00.000-07:00

Okay. I'm SUPER cool now! I have a team blog! Best recognize!

GO HERE for choclatey goodness and theology! The Canadian Tri-Personhood of Dork, Geek and Beast will wow and amaze you with their infrequent posts and observations! Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theologian

What I really learned from Thomas A Kempis...

2006-10-13T01:14:00.000-07:00

Man. Last night I smoked through An Imitation of Christ by Thomas a Kempis in a little over 2 hours, then took all my quotes and assembled an evaluation paper. I did the typical "theological evaluation" and "examination of his views of the Eucharist and Soteriology" and everything, but after reading it all I ended up thinking:

I'm so blessed that I wasn't born before the reformation. I cannot imagine how horrible life would have been when laity's access to the scriptures was forbidden, the priesthood was a circus of simony (another good name for a metal band) and the corporate church was essentially apostate. I mean, God preserved his remnant in all periods of time, but certain times were definitely dark. I was caught imagining being born into Gaul or South America (especially in 1400 AD) and not ever knowing Christ...

...Then I all of a sudden made the leap from "Man I'm blessed to be here, now, with all this" to the pressing global need for missions. As I was pondering Kempis, I realized that he's basically as good as anyone can do without the gospel: insanely obsessive personal piety and a works-based righteousness that leads one to throw every effort into the mortification of evil beheviour without any power to mortify evil desires. I mean, Kempis was the man of his day. Even the pope bowed and kissed his hand when they met. He was the most pious and spiritual monk around, but sin isn't conquered by sweat; it's conquered by blood, and every last drop at that...hence we need someone else's blood. (to atone for sin...and then imputed righteousness to become our rightousness)

I guess reading spiritualists of other cultures and faith systems is important in that it reveals the lostness of man. Kempis had really no understanding of grace, though he talked about it lots; grace to work harder to mortify the body, grace to stand against wickedness, grace to persevere, but never grace in justification by faith apart from works of the law. His grace was just "extra power from on high" to do what he didn't have enough power to do on his own. And I have talked with Catholics, Mormons, Buddhists, Moslems, Jehovah's Witnesses and Ba'hai, and that's the same boat they're in; God wants me to keep his commands and he'll possibly empower me for that feat.

They all don't get Romans 3:10 - "Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin."

And the best and brightest of their philosophers, monks and accademics all are unable to see that, short of a work of divine grace to illumine their minds to the glories of Christ:

"Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation" - Colossians 2:21-22 (bold and italics mine)

If only Thomas knew the ministry of reconciliation, completed by Christ's real death on the cross, perfect and complete in power and efficaciousness, administered to God on his behalf and appropriated by faith alone in the person and work of Jesus Christ.. Only in that sense can Paul then say:

"We proclaim him, admonishing and teaching everyone with all wisdom, so that we may present everyone perfect in Christ. To this end I labor, struggling with all his energy, which so powerfully works in me." -Colossians 2:28-29

I'm thankful that God has revealed himself to me and granted me to live in an era where the truth was loudly professed and I could learn with essentially unrestrained access to information and truth, but so many know so little about things that are SO important. So much vanity from so many voices and so many searching for any sort of salvation. I'm starting to ramble, so that's my cue for bed. Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theologian

Confessions of a Malfunctioning brain...

2006-10-10T11:25:00.000-07:00

Well, I’m not really sure whether I should be posting this on my theology blog or my, uh, non-theology blog. So, I’m kinda doing both. The Armchair Geek is guest starring on the Reflections of a Rogue Brain today. Now that the explanation is over, here’s the post:

Now those that know me, you know that I seldom dream. I don’t know why, but I suspect that it’s because me own brain is unable to survive the insane on goings of my subconscious. BUT, every now and then, the bizarre ranting of my subconscious leaks into my conscious mind when I sleep. That happened last night.

I woke up this morning from a dream about being involved in a strange, strange “ministry”. I don’t know if this is thoughts of ‘seminary life’ bleeding over into my dreams, but I dreamt that I was involved in a crazy-go-nuts “ministry” called RTB Ministries international. That would have been not so bad if “RTB” meant “Read The Bible” Ministries or “Reach The Buddhists”. Not even close. “RTB” stood for “Rhyming about Things that Bite”.

It was a ministry that was involved about meeting the “need” of people to know all about the dangers of animals that bite, and to announce those dangers via rhyme. Apparently there were lots of missionaries all around the world whose missions careers were cut short because they were killed by animal attacks. So someone started a ministry to help educate missionaries about the dangers of being bitten by animals and being killed on the mission field…and that apparently had to be done with rhyming.

I was part of a short term missions team that went to some foreign country (like India or something like that) and stood in a marketplace telling rhymes to beware of Wildebeests and snakes and whatnot. And there was a crowd of hundreds that were listening intently, hanging on our every word about the dangers of animals that bit.

We also “ministered” in a local church, telling several rhymes of various pentameter, about the dangers of animals that bite. Many maulings were prevented for the kingdom. Praise the Lord! Then I woke up.

What the freaking heck is wrong with me? I’m praying it was a stupid dream…but I woke up laughing because it was at least an entertaining heresy. I’m not sure it's reflective of some deeper misunderstandings but I’ll mention it to someone I esteem and see if they think it’s a serious danger. I’m a closet heretic! HA! HA! Okay. I’m officially crazy. Until Next Time,

The Armchair Rhyming Antibeastiomasticating Missionary. (I just made up another word, though I suspect I did it wrong)

Reflections upon the homes of the saints...

2006-10-09T01:04:00.000-07:00

I've had two fellas from Canada at my place this weekend. Jesse is from my the College and Career at my church in Saskatoon and Steve is his traveling partner. They're on like a 2 month road trip and they contacted me a few days ago, asking if they could crash at my place. Anywho, we explored Burbank a bit and I took them to Grace Community Church on Sunday. We also explored Beverly Hills and Bel Air and tried to get to Rodeo drive but couldn't because it was shut down due to the filming of some show. Dang it!

But, tonight I dragged them along to a birthday party in Valencia of a friend I met from The Masters College (like 3 weeks ago) and they were kinda hesitant to crash a Canadian Thanksgiving/birthday party with a bunch of people they didn't know. I actually was also hesitant, as I'm not one for having to 'perform' in large crowds (i.e turn my 'goofiness' up to 11) and end up breaking the ice for everyone...though I kinda did. You're all welcome. I'm not actually that stupid in real life, but laughter definitely lightens up a room a lot.

As we finished eating, one of the girls suggested that we all go around the table and say what we're thankful for. We ended up all saying our things and then Steve commented that "it's so amazing to be 2,500 miles from home, in the house of people I've known for all of two hours, eating their food and talking with relative strangers, but for some reason, have it be all cool. We stayed with some non-Christian friends in San Fransisco and they were hospitable and all, but since we have a bond in the Lord it's like being with family. I didn't think I'd be able to celebrate Thanksgiving with family while I was traveling, but God had other ideas!"

I nodded in agreement, for I was secretly thinking the same thing but didn’t want to say it for fear of sounding cheesy. But that’s so fantastically true. Being around Christians, eating and sharing and laughing together is fantastic. It’s really weird how Christ in my heart gravitates toward Christ in the hearts of others, and I got thinking:

"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." – John 13:34-35

It is one thing to let a total stranger crash on your couch, but it’s another to love them, share your home with them, share yourself with them and show genuine affection to weary brothers. I would guess that if we did that a lot more, we wouldn’t need to spend so much time arguing with cynics and skeptics about the faith. Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theologian

Okay!

2006-10-07T02:56:00.000-07:00

I think things are kinda sorted out now. Now this is a team blog between me and myself. Sheesh! At least I kept the archives and the address. OKAY! To bed with me. Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theologian

Important words one needs to know...

2006-10-06T01:36:00.000-07:00

Well, those of you that know me know that I sometimes make up words when I cannot think of the "right" word to say...and that's not always a good thing. Either way, here's some good terms I've recently (or not so recently) started using that you may enjoy stealing:

1. Calvangelism: "The idea that the 5 points of your own understanding of Calvanism (which most likely has little or nothing to do with the positions of John Calvin) is the gospel and anyone who isn't a 5.0000 pointer is reprobate and most likely in a small group lead by Shelby Spong."

2. Freedamentalism: "The concept that the fundamentals of the faith were catalogued in 1910 but not actually published until 1989 where they appeared in a work entitled Absolutely Free."

3. Evangellyfish: "The Christian who apparently believes plenty but takes a stand on absolutely nothing unless someone else is making a stink about it and has written a book about it that can be purchased inconspicuously at Costco and doesn't offend any ordained lesbians."

4. Glistening Prayer: "The concept that one can actually hear the voice of God, possibly audibly, but definitely through vision, impression, circumstances, chance, sheer whim or anything else that requires 'being conscious', if one prays until one breaks into a sweat and makes God an ultimatum to 'speak to me or else...'."

5. Sola Glossalalia: "The much forgotten reformational doctrine that somehow, speaking in tongues is necessary for salvation or any other secondary work of the spirit...like finding a spouse or knowing which pair of jeans to buy."

6. Mono Cellutis: "The idea that ignorance about doctrine, church history or the Bible somehow makes one more spiritual. The less 'spiritual brain cells' one has, the more 'real' and 'humble' a person is. See Verus Potissimus."

7. Antihermeneutianism: "The strong opposition to the presence or practice of biblical hermeneutics, especially in the avenue of discovering actual propositional meaning in a biblical text that may be applied and even necessarily obeyed." (*gasp*)

8. Verus Potissimus: "A little known doctrine stating that the most important virtue to all is to be 'real'...i.e. wear personal and moral flaws like a badge of honor and doing everything possible to make all people feel like they're more mature and biblically literate than you." (even though you're supposed to be the pastor with the 3 graduate degrees) See Mono Cellutis"

9. SuperSoCalSeministicJohnMacExegesis: "The phenomenon of thinking that any debate, over anything from theology to tennis to tournament bass fishing, is settled if one simply quotes a sermon/book/blog article/conversation of John MacArthur."

10. SuperSoCalNeuralPitstickJohnMacEisegesis: "The closely related phenomenon of thinking that any idiotic idea whatsoever can be spoken ex cathedra by finding it, regardless of context, in a sermon/book/blog article/conversation of John MacArthur." (Even though you're unknowingly quoting John Arnott...)

Now you'll all know what I'm talking about next time I say this stuff! Hooray! Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theologian

Bill and Ted's Ecclesial Adventure...

2006-10-03T14:17:00.000-07:00

Okay. Due to some craziness that can be only described as "God's sovereign hand", I'm running on around 1 hour of sleep today. It's not that I stayed up or anything...I went to bed last night and had the worst insomnia I've ever had. I lay in bed, wide awake, for like 6 hours before I finally dozed off. I don't know what was up with that, and I think I'm going to take my body in for warranty repair. None the less, as Cheryl Dyck would say, my "booze gland" is in full effect.

I had historical theology today and as we were talking about the Cappadocian Fathers, I all of a sudden had a thought starting to form in my mind. Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure would have been tres cooler if the would have gone to a Christian school and done a project on "champions of the faith". Then, once class was done and I was trying to work on my homiletics stuff, that thought turned into a full blown day dream...

Bill: This dude is Athanasius! We was a gnarly little dude who was known as the "Black Dwarf" by his haters, he was like the big Kahuna in Alexandria for like 45 years, dude!

Ted: Totally! Listen up San Dimas! Athanasius was like totally the Sammy Hagar of the early church, grabbing the mic from a monster celebrity and then fully going solo and cutting some killer tracks!

Bill: His most bodacious album was Against the Arians, which is sorta like an ancient version of Rage Against the Machine's debut albumn; totally taking the ideas of his day and punching it in the face!

Ted: That is most certainly an exquisite comparison Bill!

Bill: Thanks Ted! He wrote Against the Arians to tackle the heresies of a most heineous heretic, Arius, who like Brian McLaren presented a most monumental threat to the church!

Ted: Arius totally belonged to the ancient Watchtower and Tract Society, and taught that Jesus was like fully a created being and not actually God; a most bogus heresy!

Bill: But Athanasius was most triumphant in condeming Arianusm at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD!

Bill and Ted: EXCELLENT! (insert air guitar lick)

***********************************

and so on and so on...

I need some sleep. Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theologian

Fast Facts about the contents of Oscar Meyer Weiners:

2006-10-01T16:57:00.000-07:00

Kirk T-Dawg, I took the liberty of taking a study break and finding the following MySpace pages of the TNB (Theological Nutcase Battalion...not "TBN", though they're basically the same thing):

Creflo

Jesse Duplantis

Joyce Meyer

Benny Hinn

Kathryn Kuhlman

Smith Wigglesworth (The dead have MySpace pages?)

Paula White

Joel Osteen (who says he doesn't identify himself with the nutcases? He's on EVERYONE'S friends list!)

Paul Yonggi Cho

Reinhard Bonnke (already 20+ million people "saved" in Nigeria alone? Wow. Turning out sheer numbers like that, he should be working with the Southern Baptists!)

And on and on...I'm feeling nausious. Back to the books! Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theologian

My What Now?

2006-10-01T00:44:00.000-07:00

Okay. I kinda get that the world is growing more fickle and silly by leaps and bounds. For some reason, many people think that the internet is a credible source of information and don't seem to use books much anymore (and don't seem to think too much). It's pretty much hard to escape entertainment, what with tv on cell phones now, mp3 players everywhere and high speed wireless on just about everything from refrigerators to raincoats.

But there's something I cannot figure out. What's the deal with MySpace? I mean, I don't get it. I don't have a MySpace account (nor plan to get one), but I don't understand the purpose. I mean, the banner at MySpace says "A place for friends" and whatnot, and I assume it's some form of "online community", but I don't get how it works. I mean, consider the following page of some friends of mine (no offense Colin...you're just a random example...search for "Saskatoon" on MySpace and you're like 5th down the page)

Now these are some good dudes that I know from home; friends.

Looking at their page, they have 4,311 other friends. Oh really? Do you have 4,311 friends that you hang with regularly?

Of course not.

But everyone wants to be on StereoTrap's friends list so they're cool.

And then, looking at the comments, it seems everyone says something along the lines of:

"Hey. You are cool. Thanks for the add."

What the heck? That's SOME form of deep communication. That's the foundation of a meaningful friendship.

So what is MySpace?

Is it a community? Well, in the most basic sense of "a mass of people", yeah...except without geographical proximity or physical presense. It's like the digital equivalent of smoke signals. What a gong.

And I admit that there's a whole lot of irony in the fact that I'm blogging about how stupid MySpace is. BUT, I hung out with one of my seminary friends for most of the day. THAT was good times and actual fellowship, so my hypocrisy isn't complete.

No wonder so many kids are so suffering. If you are caught in sinful patterns of behaviour and struggling with depression/acceptance/etc, you no longer have to hammer through your problems at school, or with your parents, or at church (AS IF!)...oh no. You can get online with 5,000 other equally disfunctional kids and bask in your problems on some crazy vampire/death metal/psycho goth webring on MySpace.

'The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.' - Genesis 2:18.

And yet, with the benefits of technology, we are enabled to go to extreme efforts to isolate ourselves and seek out lonliness.

Isn't it ironic that sin seeks to reverse every good thing God has every done, and then whine about the results? So, I'm gonna make an effort to get to know 2 new people this week and do something social with them where I steer the conversation to weighty matters on purpose. Sounds good. Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theologian

If one post is good...

2006-09-27T19:30:00.002-07:00

...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 no...here 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 blood...like 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!

With a skip and a hop...

2006-09-22T01:54:00.000-07:00

...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:

OROR

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

My Personal Add...

2006-09-20T17:40:00.000-07:00

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

My stupid poem...

2006-09-18T02:49:00.000-07:00

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

A few notes:

2006-09-17T02:07:00.000-07:00

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 links...lol), 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!

The Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch

2006-09-16T17:57:00.000-07:00

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:

- “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?

Moses:

- “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?

Moses:

- “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?

Moses:

- “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?

Moses:

- “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...

2006-09-16T17:35:00.000-07:00

...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 crime...no 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

Ha...I'm plagarising myself!

2006-09-12T22:57:00.000-07:00

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

EEP!

2006-08-25T16:21:00.000-07:00

Make that 2-3 weeks. AT&T is really stupid down here and won't let me get internet until I have a 'direct pay' on my phone bill, but in order to do that I need a MasterCard/Visa from the bank and that's going to take another week or so. Sheesh! What's a guy to do?

Uh...

Drive to school and post from the library computers. That's what.

So, in the meantime I'm going to spend a little while playing with my digital camera and learn about setting up some sort of video blog on YouTube or something.

And yes, it's hot down here. Quite hot. I think it's averaged around 30 degrees every day here. And it's humid. Big shock there.

BUT school is great. Masters Seminary is sweet, and attending Grace Community Church is amazing! On the whole, the sacrifices are far worth the rewards. I'm sorry I don't have real internet or anything, and I want to talk to many of you, but that will have to wait for what appears to be a few weeks. Soon and very soon...until next time,

The Armchair Theologian

Safe and Alive!

2006-08-18T10:39:00.000-07:00

Yup, like you've possibly read on my other blog, I'm in California. I arrived safe and alive last night (Aug. 18th) and I moved into the crack house that I'm renting. California is crazy-go-nuts and God is very gracious; I made it across the border, didn't crash and actually found my way here without too many problems. Awesome! Now, I've gotta get some new textbooks and whatnot (seeing that my classes have changed) but other than that, things are good.

I already miss Canadian fast food; the stuff that passes for "food" down here is, uh, yeah. Greasy and tasteless (and for some crazy reason, Subway doesn't have any sauces down here...so everything is really dry! SO Gross!). In-and-Out burger is the only thing worth mentioning; not bad. I think that eating health won't be much problem.

Other than that, I've said lots on the Armchair Geek blog; no sense repeating myself. But on a funny note, last night I saw an Asian guy standing on a parked car, dancing to whatever loud rap music was playing. Surprisingly, this place kinda feels like Richmond, BC! HA!

Oh, and I met someone and he figured that he'd greet me with an Irish accent. I said "Good morning" and he said "Top of the mornin' to ya, lad!". (Let's here it for the stereotype that American's really are ignorant about everything except the USA) I almost responded in my best "Ernie Scar" impression (or a good Hutterite voice), but self-control reigned supreme. I figured that if I invited the guy to come out to the Hunt and Hook sports in Brocket, he wouldn't have had a CLUE what I was talking about. One day though...one day. Okay.

Final note. I went into the GCC bookstore. I started weeping. The best Christian bookstore ever; no Brad Jersak or other flake-fest crap. All good books. I might spend my inheritance! Anyway, I've got a TON of running around to do. I already miss Saskatoon and the people there, but I'll only be down here for a few years...time WILL fly! Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theologian

P.S. - regular posting will continue in around a week, once I get my internet hooked up to my house.

Lessons learned from a blog>>>!<<<

2006-08-10T09:28:00.000-07:00

It seems that the only way that I know anyone ever reads this dumb blog is if I say something risque, or offensive. Controversy apparently generates hits and posts. So, I was thinking that I needed a new post, since all my serious writing has been in the comments as of late (there's been some good stuff plastering the comment board though!). Something deep and thought provoking. Something controversial. Hmmm...what would also be slightly offensive, but not enough to be offensive to some of my friends? How about this:

PARTY AT MY PLACE ON SATURDAY!

Yeah. I'm leaving for California next week, so I'm having an open door party on Saturday. I'll open the doors from around 6 until midnight and I'll have the barbeque running for a while. Bring drinks and whatever food you want, but I'm going to be totally cleaning out all the food I have, so come to goon! I have so many different groups of people wanting to see me that I figured that I'd simply have a party and let everyone come over who wants to! Spread the word!

PARTY! PARTY! PARTY!

Oh, and I'm at (content removed by federal witness protection program). You can call me at work if you want, or call me at home (382-XXXX) if you have any questions.

Spread the word!

PARTY! PARTY! PARTY!

Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theologian

WOW! WAS I WRONG!

2006-08-07T09:39:00.000-07:00

Well, it's August 7th and I'm not a prophet...this link shows it to be the case. The gay pride parade in Jerusalem was cancelled due to the war. Apparently God didn't like the idea of the homosexuals marching around his favorite city and he didn't like the ideas of all those homosexuals getting global media attention in their efforts to mock him...so he caused a war to stop it. Now, nobody even remembers the stink that was caused only a few weeks ago. In fact, it's the 7th and I even forgot to check up on this story yesterday! Eeveryone is worried about Hizbullah, not the homosexuals. The gay pride folks were hoping that they eyes of the world would be upon them and that everyone would see their bold statement BUT, they got totally owned by the almighty. I cannot help but laugh out loud at the amazing timing of this skirmish with Lebanon.

Nebuchadnezzar was right on the money when he exclaimed:

"His dominion is an eternal dominion;
his kingdom endures from generation to generation.
All the peoples of the earth
are regarded as nothing.
He does as he pleases
with the powers of heaven
and the peoples of the earth.
No one can hold back his hand
or say to him: "What have you done?" - Daniel 4:34-35

The Psalmist was equally right when he said:

"The kings of the earth take their stand
and the rulers gather together
against the LORD
and against his Anointed One.

"Let us break their chains," they say,
"and throw off their fetters."

The One enthroned in heaven laughs;
the Lord scoffs at them." - Psalm 2:2-4

or:

"I know that the LORD is great,
that our Lord is greater than all gods.

The LORD does whatever pleases him,
in the heavens and on the earth,
in the seas and all their depths.

He makes clouds rise from the ends of the earth;
he sends lightning with the rain
and brings out the wind from his storehouses.

He struck down the firstborn of Egypt,
the firstborn of men and animals.

He sent his signs and wonders into your midst, O Egypt,
against Pharaoh and all his servants.

He struck down many nations
and killed mighty kings-

Sihon king of the Amorites,
Og king of Bashan
and all the kings of Canaan-

and he gave their land as an inheritance,
an inheritance to his people Israel.

Your name, O LORD, endures forever,
your renown, O LORD, through all generations." - Psalm 135:5-13

And Isaiah spoke truth when he proclaimed:

Do you not know?
Have you not heard?
Has it not been told you from the beginning?
Have you not understood since the earth was founded?

He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
and its people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

He brings princes to naught
and reduces the rulers of this world to nothing. - Isaiah 40:21-23

God - 1

Gays - 0

Did they think God would take this sitting down? Not even close. Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theologian

The 8th point...

2006-07-26T00:41:00.001-07:00

"Nothing angers a man so much as seeing his own sin in someone else..."

- Ravi Zacharias

In the last several months, I've had to endure something that has been horribly tough; I've sat by and watched as a friend's life crumbled around him. I've tried to encourage him, whenever we've talked (which has been fairly frequent). I've prayed for him, and I've done my best to give him biblical advice.

What has been the frustration is that in the light of biblical counsel, and in the light of fairly obvious scriptural teaching, he has gone off and done what seemed right in his own eyes. He's added mistake to mistake, and sin to sin, and the fruits of his labors are now coming down on his head...and there's not much I can do.

One of the most discouraging things in my adult life has been seeing people whom I love, people with whom I've served the Lord, turn their back on God when they needed him the most and reject the faith when the refiners fire burned the hottest. I remember when news of a spiritual mentor's suicide came to me shortly after I completed my first undergrad; right when God seemed to be burning away the chaff in his life, with one motion of a finger he made a lasting comment on his view of Christ's sufficiency and soveriegn provision in his life; that day was dark indeed.

Over the years, I've had so many conversations with people who used to be mentors, or spiritual brothers, or even pastors, who've thrown in the towel and given up either on God or on hope. I've talked to friends who've been burned out by pain/trials/suffering and embraced anything BUT God, whether that be in the form of abandoning a call to ministry, the simplicity of no longer fighting sin (like making justifications for sexual immorality), or an alternate 'faith' altogether (like Islam or theological liberalism).

As a theologian I study the scriptures and expect plenty of seed to fall on the rocky ground, get scorched by the sun or choked by weeds...but seeing grain get choked by weeds or scorched by the sun never gets any easier.

And the worst is when I see weeds rising and the sun getting higher in my own life. Something I'm learning the importance of remembering is this:

"Everyone who competes in the games goes into strict training. They do it to get a crown that will not last; but we do it to get a crown that will last forever. Therefore I do not run like a man running aimlessly; I do not fight like a man beating the air. No, I beat my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize."
- 1 Corinthians 9:25-27

I don't want to run the race in vain...I must not run the race in vain.

Lord, grant me the strength to run the race and reach the finish. Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theologian

The Foundation of the Answer to the Question of Cessationism: Part 9 - A look at Old Testament Miracles/Signs and Wonders...

2006-07-24T23:27:00.000-07:00

Well, it appears that there’s a few bites of salad left until we get to the main course, but we’re getting close, although sometimes it seems like this meal is taking forever. So where am I going? Well, before we jump into the Gospels and Acts (among other places), I think it would be wise to take a quick flight through the Old Testament and examine the historic frequency of miracles/signs and wonders, as well as any teaching on their purpose(s).

Before we get running, I should also clarify something. In this post when I refer to ‘miracles/signs and wonders’, I’m not talking about a miracle or miraculous sign done exclusively by God, like creation or regeneration. I am talking more specifically, about miracles or signs performed by God via human agents, like healings or the multiplication of food or other things of that sort. The Cessationist and Non-Cessationist both would agree that God performs miracles, independent of any agent, whenever he wills to do so. If a person is sick and the church prays for him and he’s ‘miraculously’ healed, I would suggest that both sides of the debate would not challenge accrediting such a healing to God. The disagreement comes when the Cessationist and Non-Cessationist talk about miracles (and this is specifically really talking about 'healings') that are performed by human agents. An example of this would be the variety of miracles performed by God through the agent of Elijah, or the various healings performed by the apostles.

Now, back to our quick run through the Old Testament:

1. The first recorded miracles in the Old Testament, performed by a human agent, were the three signs that God gave Moses in Exodus 4:1-9. The life of Moses was most certainly marked by the miraculous; there were the Egyptian plagues, the crossing of the Red Sea, the bringing forth of water from the rock, the bronze serpent, and many more. The miracles of the exodus did not occur only in Moses’ life; several miracles occured under Joshua. Interestingly, Exodus clearly gives the purpose of the miracles of Moses in Exodus 4:1-9; God explicitly states why he gave Moses the three signs/miracles. Exodus 4:5 says

"This," said the LORD, "is so that they may believe that the LORD, the God of their fathers—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob—has appeared to you."

The miracles verified the messenger and his message, that they were both from God.

I would also suggest that it would be fair to say that the period of the exodus (Moses' and Joshua's time of leadership over Israel) was somewhere around 65 years, from around 1491BC (rough date of the Exodus) to 1426BC (rough date of beginning of the period of the Judges).

2. The next period of miracles/signs and wonders occured during the lives of Elijah and Elisha. As for the question of purpose, 1 Kings 17 says something interesting. After Elijah has fed the widow at Zarephath for many months, and raised her son from the dead, what does she say? 1 Kings 17:24 records it:

Then the woman said to Elijah, "Now I know that you are a man of God and that the word of the LORD from your mouth is the truth."

Again, the miracles verified the messenger and his message, that they were both from God.

Elijah performed miracles starting in Zarephath (1 Kings 17), which would be somewhere around 918 BC until the death of Elisha during the reign of Jehohaz, which ended around 825 BC.

These are the two periods in the Old Testament where the miraculous, as performed by God via human agents, was frequent, and in both times we see that they have the same purpose: The verification of the messenger and message; to confirm that both were from God.

Beyond that, there is a small point to be made from the sheer historical frequency of miracles/ sign and wonders. In 4,000+ years of Old Testament History we have recorded miracles/ signs and wonders occurring for around 160 years.

That suggests that the miraculous was 'normative' around 4-5% of the time, The argument from sheer recorded instances of miracles/ signs and wonders isn't that strong an argument (admittedly), but it definitely suggests strongly that in the Old Testament, miracles/ signs and wonders weren't the normative occurrences of daily life. I'd guess, maybe, that for such a reason the miracles were recorded; so that people wouldn't forget the miracle/sign that occurred 'hundreds of years ago.'

The historical pattern is a point of interest, and is not a clinching argument for cessationism. It is only one brick in a large wall. The purposes of the miraculous are much more important though, just as a point of note.

Miracles/ signs and wonders never were a purpose unto themselves. They did not happen for the sake of anything short of the verification of a messenger from the Lord, at least in my study of scripture.

My purpose here is to only lay a foundation of an Old Testament understanding of miracles/signs and wonders, and specifically in the context that I’m discussing: miracles or signs performed by God via human agents. I know this will generate exponentially more questions than answers, but that cannot be helped. I can only go one step at a time. Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theologian

Enough already!

2006-07-19T20:56:00.000-07:00

Before I even post this, I want to say "I KNOW!". I know what some are going to say. I'm flying off the cuff. I'm an alarmist. I'm a crazy fundamentalist. Blah blah blah. Either way, this is crazy-go-nuts.

My best friend is working in Korea, and has been for a year now. We've often talked about how gender roles are super confused in Korean culture, with boys trying their best to be effeminate...wearing lipstick, pink tight shirts, etc. No kidding.

And, I've been involved off and on in debates and conversations about gender issues over here, including doing some writing regarding the current "ordination of women" debate in the Mennonite Brethren circles.

Anyway, my friend and I were recently talking and he sent me a link to a youtube site, which was a video be a Korean artist named "Ha RiSu". I watched it and thought it was just another K-pop girl dancing around and singing and whatnot. Here's the link:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=jy3nt2nOOiU&search=harisu

After I watched a bit, he told me that the "she" is a "he". Excuse me? But yes, that's a "him"...a "him" who's had a sex change, but a "him" none the less. So we kept talking and I realized that Korea has a growing fascination with 'transgendered' pop stars. Now, Korea has a growing 'transgendered' pop scene. There's a group called "Lady" that is cutting tunes over there. Here's a link to a news story from last March:

http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200503/200503270008.html

And here's a link to their blog:

http://blogpage.com/UserPage/Lady/index.asp

It's, uh, something. I'm not going to say that Canada is headed for that level of gender confusion...(the kids in my friend's hogwan think it's 'cool' and such...*sigh*), but it's interesting...albeit quite sad. I may do some research into Korean history sometime to see how 'traditional' male/female roles have been so completely overturned and lost. Anyway, just some thoughts. What are your thoughts? Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theologian