November 24, 2007 Posted by Roger Overton
closeAuthor: Roger Overton
Name: Roger Overton
Email: rogeroverton@hotmail.com
Site: http://ateamblog.com
About: Roger Overton is currently pursuing a Masters degree at Talbot School of Theology. He has addressed various churches, schools and youth camps throughout the United States. Roger was co-editor of The New Media Frontier (Crossway, 2008) and God and Governing (Wipf & Stock, 2009).
Roger can be emailed at rogeroverton@hotmail.com.See Authors Posts (570)
Here are some audio selections from the
conferences I've attended over the past month.
C.S. Lewis: The Man & His Work,
October 26-27, 2007 at SEBTS. (courtesy SEBTS)
Walter Hooper: “Walter
Hooper's Work as Editor of C.S. Lewis
Works“
Bruce Edwards:
“C.S.
Lewis: America's Bonny Fighter“
Walter
Hooper: “C.S.
Lewis: Reflections about the Man“
James
Como: “Culture
and Public Philosophy: The Other C.S. Lewis“
GodBlogCon
2007, November 8-9 at the Las Vegas Convention
Center (courtesy Scriptorium Daily)
Al Mohler: “Pioneering
the New Media for Christ“
John Mark Reynolds: “Focus
and Motivation“
Mark D. Roberts: “Taking
Your Ministry to the New Media“
Rhett Smith: “New
Media Ministry to the Myspace-Facebook Generation“
Bonnie Lindblom:
“Communicating
Biblical Womanhood“
Joe Carter: “Identifying
Impact in Culture for Christians in New Media“
Paul Spears:
“Trafficking
in Substance a Blogging Dilemma”
Dustin Steeve: “Basics
of Blogging“
La Shawn Barber: “Writing
Well in the New Media“
Kevin Wang: “Design
Desiderata for the Godblogger“
Jeff VanderGiessen: “Developing
a Pod & Vidcast Ministry“
Evangelical Theological Society, November 14-16, 2007 in
San Diego, CA.
John Piper: “Justification and the
Diminishing Work of Christ” Manuscript | Audio | Video (HT: JT, courtesy: DG)
Posted in Main Page, Miscellaneous, Roger's Posts 
3 Comments »
November 21, 2007 Posted by Roger OvertoncloseAuthor: Roger Overton
Name: Roger Overton
Email: rogeroverton@hotmail.com
Site: http://ateamblog.com
About: Roger Overton is currently pursuing a Masters degree at Talbot School of Theology. He has addressed various churches, schools and youth camps throughout the United States. Roger was co-editor of The New Media Frontier (Crossway, 2008) and God and Governing (Wipf & Stock, 2009).
Roger can be emailed at rogeroverton@hotmail.com.See Authors Posts (570)
I didn't make it to Dr. Moreland's paper, but it was likely the most controversial one presented and has caused a stir on the internet. He has made the paper available online. A lengthy discussion as ensued following Ted Olson's summary at the Christianity Today blog. Dr. Moreland has also posted a general response to the CT discussion.
The paper carries on several of the themes found in Dr. Moreland's latest book The Kingdom Triangle (2007, Zondervan). I have not read the book, so my comments should be read with that in mind (perhaps some of my concerns are addressed in the book).
I believe there is at least a grain of truth to Dr. Moreland's main concern. Some people do misunderstand the authority and role of the Bible. I agree with Dr. Moreland that the Bible is the ultimate source but not “the sole source of knowledge of God, morality, and a host of related important items.”
However, I
believe there are serious problems with some of the claims and solutions
presented in the paper, and that some of these are more dangerous than the main
concern Dr. Moreland is addressing. An “over-commitment” to the Bible
may be wrong, but it is far better than under-commitment, and I believe
under-commitment is far more prevalent. Consider the recent studies (such as
Christian Smith's) that demonstrate the strength of relativism (or “moral
therapeutic deism”) among Christian youth today. Such beliefs do not result
from an over-commitment to the Bible. It may be possible to sin as a result of
over-commitment, but I would argue that most sins are committed as a result (in
part) of under-commitment to the authority and teaching of the Bible.
The proper
corrective is not to criticize the few who may be over-committed, but hold
accountable the many who are under-committed. This command was given to the
disciples by Jesus: “teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:20) Paul told Timothy that “All
Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for
correction and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be
competent, equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17). The leaders of
the church are not responsible for teaching people extra-biblical knowledge as
Dr. Moreland suggests, they are responsible for teaching the Bible and holding
their sheep accountable to it- not to natural theology or “words of knowledge.”
If Christians are to be holy as Christ is holy (1 Peter 1:15-16), if Christians
are live as one so that the world will know that the Father sent the Son (John
17:20-21), then they will do so because of a strong commitment to the Bible,
not because of extra-biblical knowledge they may pick up along the way. The vast majority of Christians desperately
need to be more committed to the
Bible, not less.
In arguing
that the “best explanation” for over-commitment “is historical and
sociological,” Dr. Moreland commits a genetic fallacy. While Dr. Moreland’s
claim may be true of some people, the majority of those he is criticizing have
arguments for what they believe. Instead of engaging in people’s arguments
against natural theology, extra-biblical knowledge of spirits, and his Third
Wave version of divine guidance, Dr. Moreland criticizes their possible
intellectual heritage and dismisses their arguments. He does this in his
section on “Why are Contemporary American Evangelicals Over-committed to the
Bible?” and when he cites Richard B. Gaffin on page 8.
Dr.
Moreland’s failure to address the biblical arguments of those who disagree with
him, to provide biblical support for any of the claims he made in his paper and
his over-emphasis on extra-biblical knowledge leave me doubtful about his
commitment to the Bible as the ultimate authority and “source of relevant knowledge.”
Certainly the Bible is relevant in these issues, so I can only hope that he
demonstrates the commitment he claims to have in his book since it is absent
from his paper.
[Editorial note: My language about being “doubtful about his commitment to the Bible” was too strong and I apologize for any confusion that caused. I am concerned, but I am not to the point of doubting his commitment.]
Posted in Main Page, Roger's Posts, Theology 23 Comments »
November 19, 2007 Posted by Roger OvertoncloseAuthor: Roger Overton
Name: Roger Overton
Email: rogeroverton@hotmail.com
Site: http://ateamblog.com
About: Roger Overton is currently pursuing a Masters degree at Talbot School of Theology. He has addressed various churches, schools and youth camps throughout the United States. Roger was co-editor of The New Media Frontier (Crossway, 2008) and God and Governing (Wipf & Stock, 2009).
Roger can be emailed at rogeroverton@hotmail.com.See Authors Posts (570)
Dr. Richards’ purpose was to respond to an argument popular
amongst atheists in the blogosphere, and he also attributed it to skeptic
Michael Shermer. The argument typically goes something like this: ID theorists
believe order in nature is due to intelligent design because they see “reliable
indicators.” Many of these theorists also favor free markets. However, market
order cannot be designed, as exemplified by the failed attempts to plan
economies that ended in disaster. Free market order is an example of the
appearance of design without a designer, therefore ID theorists live in
contradiction.
Hayek and other notable economists have argued that it is
epistemologically impossible to plan markets. Free markets coordinate goods
between producers and consumers who are often unaware of each other in a way
that usually benefits all who are involved. To plan such a market would require
an incredible amount of knowledge that simply isn’t feasible.
Adam Smith claimed that people develop goods because of
self-interest, the primary motivation is not the interest of others. Smith
believed an “invisible hand” guides the promotion of better goods in such a
market. Interestingly, Smith was a deist and believed that this hand was God’s
providence.
Hayek put forward a more sophisticated argument against the
notion that markets can be designed:
1) Subjective
Theory of (Economic) Value- Value is determined by what the consumer is willing
to pay for the product.
2) Humans
are not telepathic or omniscient.
3) Therefore,
no human can coordinate a market better than the spontaneous ordering of a
market.
Perhaps one could plan an incredibly limited market, but
markets of any complexity require spontaneous order. Hayek went a step further
and claimed that order from chaos occurs in natural sciences (i.e. natural
selection), so there’s no principled problem with finding order from chaos in
economics. Hayek would have been wiser to stick to his area of study.
Does Hayek’s argument show that markets can’t be designed?
He has shown that no human can plan a market, but could God? Of course- God is
omniscient so He has the knowledge required for such a task. Hayek’s argument
works well against socialist planning of markets, but does not prove that
markets can’t be designed by a being with knowledge of everything.
Posted in Main Page, Philosophy, Roger's Posts 2 Comments »
The writers' strike is nothing. Just think about how things used to be for Jack Bauer.
Seriously, how did we live like this?
The scary part is that the actual 24 started only seven years after 1994. That's almost the same amount of time between now and the first episode of the series in 2001. Where on earth will we be seven years from now?
(HT: Derek White)
Posted in Amy's Posts, Culture, Main Page, Miscellaneous 1 Comment »
November 15, 2007 Posted by Roger OvertoncloseAuthor: Roger Overton
Name: Roger Overton
Email: rogeroverton@hotmail.com
Site: http://ateamblog.com
About: Roger Overton is currently pursuing a Masters degree at Talbot School of Theology. He has addressed various churches, schools and youth camps throughout the United States. Roger was co-editor of The New Media Frontier (Crossway, 2008) and God and Governing (Wipf & Stock, 2009).
Roger can be emailed at rogeroverton@hotmail.com.See Authors Posts (570)
This paper was essentially a summary of Dr. House’s chapter in the recently released Reasons for Faith ed. Norman Geisler and Chad Meister. The following is my summary of his paper and reflects my understanding of the points Dr. House made.
The apologetic debate is over whether God intends to use general revelation to bring about salvific belief. The central question is: Do we share any common ground with the unbeliever?
Classical and Evidential apologetics acknowledge that unbelievers can understand some truth. The difference between them is the Classical begins at first principles and Evidential begins anywhere. Presuppostional apologetics deny unbelievers can understand any truth until after regeneration by the Holy Spirit.
A crucial distinction is needed between “believing in” and “believing that.” Evidential apologetics can be used to bring someone to the point of “believing that.” “Believing in” requires regeneration. For example, there have been Jewish scholars who have affirmed that the resurrection of Jesus is a historically verifiable event. But there differ regarding the meaning of the resurrection- whether or not Jesus is the messiah. They believe “that” but not “in.”
Evidence can assist a person to belief in Christ by removing factual obstacles. The task of apologetics is to show the truth of objective reality. The move to embrace belief in (from belief that) requires the subjective work of the Spirit. The Spirit makes meaning of the historically objective reality.
In Acts, the audience has no familiarity with the Hebrew scriptures- much like where our culture is going today. Paul started with creation: God’s existence and nature, and moved on to what God has done. His framework was provided by his theology found in Romans 1: that “they knew God.” Many people understand with their mind but do not receive in their hearts.
Paul sought common ground with his audience. Instead of wasting time with pointless rabbit trail debates, he pointed out that they both believed in God and kerygma. He moved from what they accepted to what they did not know. Paul also assumed that he was being understood- that those in his audience could follow the logic of his argument (another aspect of common ground).
Posted in Apologetics, Main Page, Roger's Posts 36 Comments »
I gave this very brief answer recently when asked, “Why does the argument for a first cause of the universe conveniently stop with God? Where did God come from?”
An infinite regress of causes is logically impossible. That is, there could not have been an infinite number of successive events in the past because we never would have reached the events happening now.
This means, by necessity, if the world came into existence, there was a first cause beginning the world. Since nothing caused that first cause (by definition), the first cause 1) had to have begun this world by a decision of will (because the first event was not a natural result of an earlier event, and only a personal being can initiate something that's not an automatic result of a natural cause), and 2) had to be, as the first cause, a self-existent being that did not come into existence. That being is God. By definition, He does not have a cause.
If you ask, “Who created God?” you're really just asking, “Who is the real God–the true first, self-existent, personal cause?” because the one true God–the initiator of everything–does not have a cause.
Posted in Amy's Posts, Apologetics, Main Page 29 Comments »
November 13, 2007 Posted by Roger OvertoncloseAuthor: Roger Overton
Name: Roger Overton
Email: rogeroverton@hotmail.com
Site: http://ateamblog.com
About: Roger Overton is currently pursuing a Masters degree at Talbot School of Theology. He has addressed various churches, schools and youth camps throughout the United States. Roger was co-editor of The New Media Frontier (Crossway, 2008) and God and Governing (Wipf & Stock, 2009).
Roger can be emailed at rogeroverton@hotmail.com.See Authors Posts (570)
This week is ETS- a fun academic conference where hundreds of papers are read each year by top evangelical scholars. What makes the conference even more exciting is that most Christian publishers are there offering at least 50% off their books. Last year I came prepared with an extra suitcase and came home with 52 books (See my library on LibraryThing). This year the gloves are off- I'm driving to the conference so I can buy more than a suitcase full (and it helps that I'm doing far better financially). Think I'm crazy? Justin Taylor linked to a helpful list of responses defending the pro-bibliophile position. If you're a Facebookphile and bibliophile, you might be interested in this group I created awhile back: “I Judge People By the Books They Read“
As I've done the past 2 years, I'll be blogging about select papers I find interesting during the conference.
Posted in Main Page, Miscellaneous, Roger's Posts No Comments »
Paul Spears compared this masterpiece by Rubens to a portrait of an 18th century man. Both were technically excellent, but the first had substance that the second lacked–passion, a story, something deeper than a semi-narcissistic commissioned portrait.
In the same way, we should not only have the same kind of technical craftsmanship that the great artists had when creating their paintings (in our case, correct grammar, spelling, and language), but if we want to have significant blogs, we also need the kind of substance demonstrated in the Rubens painting. The story and ideas of Christ and our Christian worldview need to support and surround everything that we write. Our posts ought to point our readers to bigger, more important things and increase their understanding of the truth about the world.
This will be much easier to do if we keep our focus on God rather than our own importance and self-centered ambition. The motivation for our blogging had better be a transcendent cause–our calling to serve Christ–rather than a desire to build our own little blogging kingdom where we get a certain number of hits and readers. Though the human temptation is to move in the second direction, attracting us to the trendy (not to mention boring) rather than the deep, we have to fight its pull; it’s the easiest way to kill the long-term value and significance of our work.
Posted in Amy's Posts, Main Page, New Media No Comments »
John Mark Reynolds had some good advice about how to not burn out as a blogger. He particularly emphasized the need for us to write less about ourselves and more about external ideas. Begin with an outer focus and then reflect on the inner implications. If we do the opposite, the likely result will be that we’ll become boring as we end up saying nearly the same thing every day (whatever our pet ideas happen to be), twisting every topic into a way to get our own agenda across.
Secondly, we ought to blog for the permanent side of the blogosphere rather than for our immediate readers. In other words, even as we’re commenting on timely topics, there ought to be a certain timelessness to our commentary so our work will continue to be of value. Posts that offer this will be stumbled upon and accessed by people for years to come, and in this way our impact will possibly be greater in the long term than we would expect from our number of usual readers.
As an aid to both of the above goals, Dr. Reynolds reminded us that the best new media relies on old media (books, film, etc.) and not on other new media. If we’re taking in great ideas and reflecting on them and their goodness, beauty, and truth, and if we make our goal to see the face of God rather than to exalt ourselves, we’ll persevere in creating valuable, lasting work.
Posted in Amy's Posts, Main Page, Miscellaneous, New Media 1 Comment »
The comments from Al Mohler remind me of a big concern I have about Emergent Christians. Because language is so central to being a Christian, we need to take special care to use words as precisely and meaningfully as possible. Emergents recognize the key role of language, but many of them mistakenly believe that it’s language itself that creates truth (rather than reflects it) for our community. Their focus on using language to create a better world or influence theology rather than on striving to accurately represent truth through the proper use of language inevitably leads to two things. First, it leads to a misuse of language as a means to manipulate the perspectives of the readers or listeners. Second, not rooting your language in a reality that exists outside of yourself means your language will drift, and as it drifts, you will ultimately create barriers between yourself and other people (Christians and non-Christians) who use language differently, as you can hear in this interview.
As Christians for whom communication is absolutely central, we cannot afford to let either of these consequences come about.
Posted in Amy's Posts, Emerging / Emergent Church, Main Page No Comments »
content rss
Recent Comments