A Call to Personal and Public Holiness- Online Edition

Date September 9, 2007 Posted by Roger Overton

There is an absence of holiness today. I doubt this is
controversial- one simply has to turn on the news to find the evidence.
However, I’m far more concerned about the absence of holiness among those of us
who call ourselves Christians. This is also evidenced by the news, as well as
on the Internet in social networking sites such as MySpace and Facebook.

We are not saved by
our works, and, thankfully, those who are saved cannot be condemned by their
sins. But salvation is not an excuse for sin. We are not to continue in sin
that grace may abound- this would be an insult to Christ’s sacrifice on our
behalf. On the contrary, we are to walk in newness of life. “Now if we have
died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him.” (Romans 6:8)

Living with Christ means freedom. Some Christians take this
freedom the wrong way- as though it means freedom to do whatever they want. They
take this to mean freedom from legalism, freedom from authorities who seem to
think we have to be Puritans in order to be a Christian. This is how the
world thinks of freedom- especially our postmodern one which despises all
authorities but the self. John Mark Reynolds recently addressed this from the “Christian liberty” angle.

The Christian life is not about being spiritual, it is about
being holy. We are called to be holy as Christ is holy. Freedom in Christ is
not freedom to do what one wants, but freedom from enslavement to sin- freedom
to finally reflect Christ’s holiness as we were created to. This means we must
flee from sin, we must die to it, we must mortify it.

And yet, so many Christians appear to live in sin. On
Facebook and MySpace it doesn’t take long to find profiles of people who label
themselves as Christian, and yet they post pictures of themselves obviously
drunk, or practicing sexual immorality, or being immodest in their appearance
or speech. Students at Biola
University are required
to sign a contract in which they agree to refrain from drinking alcohol while
enrolled. But some of these students are so careless with their integrity (or
lack of) that they have posted pictures online of themselves drinking.

The Bible is clear:

Being drunk is a sin. (Gal. 5:21, Eph. 5:18)

Sexual immorality is a sin. (1 Cor. 6:18, 2 Cor. 12:21, Gal.
5:19, Eph. 5:3)

Unwholesome speech is a sin. (Eph. 4:29, James 3:9-12)

Breaking your word is a sin. (Prov. 6:16-19, Rom. 1:29, Eph.
4:25)

I don’t profess to live perfectly. I must admit that I’ve
committed most of these sins. But I’m not suggesting myself as a model of
holiness. Christ is the model of holiness we are to seek. And if we’re going to
call ourselves followers of Christ, we best start living like we are. Following
Christ does not mean being spiritual, it means we reflect His holiness in all
our thoughts, words, and deeds, and that includes what we do and say on the
Internet.

Category Posted in Ethics, Main Page, Roger's Posts Comments 8 Comments »

A Defense of Biblical Inerrancy, Part 6

Date August 28, 2007 Posted by Roger Overton

Part 1 and Part 2 on the definition
Part 3 and Part 4 on the argument.
Part 5 on some possible objections.

The Importance of the Bible’s Claim to Inerrancy & Conclusion

            As it has
been stated, the conclusion that the Bible implicitly claims to be inerrant is
apparently weaker than the claim that the Bible is, in fact, inerrant. However,
the conclusion still holds significant weight in the inerrancy debate for two
reasons. First, many critics of inerrancy do not believe the Bible teaches
inerrancy, even implicitly. If the argument made here is persuasive, and the
Bible does play an authoritative role in the critics’ reasoning, then it should
have profound implications for their view of inerrancy.

            The second
reason the conclusion is important is more interesting. The argument can be
extended to be directed specifically at those who affirm limited inerrancy or
infallibility:

1.      Infallibilists
who deny inerrancy claim that the Bible is true in matters of faith and
practice.

2.      The
Bible’s claims about its own integrity are a matter of faith and practice.

3.      Therefore,
infallibilists ought to affirm that the Bible is true in everything it affirms
(usually referred to as inerrancy)

By the critics’ own standards,
then, they ought to affirm inerrancy. “Faith and practice” is typically
proposed by non-inerrantists to categorically distinguish what they believe is
necessarily true in the Bible and what could be false in the Bible, the
historical, geographic, and scientific details. Davis, for example, put this standard
forward. “The Bible is fully trustworthy and never misleads us on matters that
are crucially relevant to Christian faith and practice.”[1]

It is with the “crucially relevant”
qualification that Davis
would likely seek to find a way out of the proposed argument. He could claim
that the Bible’s view of its own integrity is not crucially relevant to faith and practice. This claim does hold some
water. It is entirely possible for a Christian to deny inerrancy while
affirming all of the essentials of the Christian faith. A great many critics of
inerrancy likely find themselves in this position. However, the Bible’s view of
itself is significantly relevant. If
the Bible is inerrant, the Christian is forced (in theory) to submit to what is
put forward in the Bible. If the Bible has errors, then the Christian has
reason to submit the Bible to his own standards for what is authoritative in.
This is precisely where Davis
ended up: “I believe the Bible is or ought to be authoritative for every
Christian in all that it says on any subject unless and until he encounters a
passage which after careful study and for good reasons he cannot accept.”[2] It
is one thing to claim that a particular interpretation of a passage is wrong,
it’s quite another to say that the passage itself is wrong and therefore has no
authority. Such a position robs the Bible of authority and gives it to the
reader.

Simply defined, the doctrine of
inerrancy claims the Bible is true in all it affirms, regardless of the
affirmations’ categories. Though the Bible does not explicitly teach the
doctrine, an argument has been constructed to show that it does so implicitly.
The argument has also been extended to apply directly to critics of inerrancy
who still hold that the Bible is true in matters of faith and practice, showing
that by their own standards they ought to believe in the doctrine of inerrancy.
Without the doctrine of inerrancy, the Christian reader is more likely to judge
the Bible by his own standards than he is to allow the Bible to judge him.
Therefore, the Bible is significantly relevant to Christian faith and practice.

With such emphasis on the Bible,
however, it is important to maintain a proper perspective. As put forth
earlier, the truthfulness of the Bible really refers to the truthfulness of God
as demonstrated by His Words. While the Bible is a valuable gift from God to
His people, it is not the prize of the Christian faith. Christ did not die on
the cross to give His people the Bible; He died to reconcile them to God.
However, the Bible is God’s means for communicating this good news, and this is
why the Bible is so foundational. So in proper perspective, Christians must
seek to maintain the balance between understanding God as the supreme
importance and understanding the Bible as the primary instrument for learning
about Him and what He’s done.


[1] Davis, 118.

[2] Davis, 116.

Category Posted in Main Page, Roger's Posts, Theology Comments 6 Comments »

A Defense of Biblical Inerrancy, Part 5

Date August 27, 2007 Posted by Roger Overton

Part 1 and Part 2 on the definition
Part 3 and Part 4 on the argument.

Objections to the Bible’s Claim to Inerrancy

            Obviously,
non-interrantists will object to the conclusion of the argument. So where might
they find fault with it? Stephen T. Davis objected to a similar argument,
though it is the “therefore, the Bible cannot lie”[1]
version. However, his only real objection is that it is “deductive in the
extreme.”[2]
His problem was with the method of the argument, and he claimed that history
has shown how “dangerous deduction can be.”[3] This,
of course, does not show that deduction in relation to inerrancy is necessarily
“dangerous,” nor is it clear that such a charge could successfully be leveled
at the more modest deduction being put forward here. Whether or not a form of
argument is “dangerous,” the argument still needs to be dealt with.

            The first
premise reflects a strong view of inspiration such that God is involved in some
way in originating the words that comprise the text of the Bible. Someone with
a weaker view of inspiration would likely deny the first premise. That person
would then need to put forth adequate interpretations of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and
2 Peter 1:21, as well as the other passages that point to God’s authorship of
the Bible. As it stands, it appears that the clearest and most reasonable interpretation
of these passages is that the words of the Bible originated with God in some
way. Many who deny inerrancy do, in fact, affirm this premise. Davis, for example, said
“somehow, the Bible’s words are God’s words.”[4]

            It is
likely the case that most Christians would not deny the second premise
outright. They would affirm that anything that comes directly from God must be
true. However, non-inerrantists may object that such a belief is not relevant
to the argument for inerrancy. Davis
raised this objection in his earlier work. “But the Bible containing an error
is not the same thing as God lying. (The question, “But can God lie?” is
sometimes used as a rhetorical device by unsophisticated defenders of
inerrancy.)”[5]< There
are only two ways that the Bible containing an error may not be the same thing
as God lying. The first is if the Bible was not inspired by God. Divine
inspiration of the Bible has already been defended and Davis has repeatedly affirmed it. If God is
in some way the author of the Bible, an error is found, and God is not lying,
then the only other alternative is that God is ignorant. He could not be
accused of lying if He didn’t know what He claimed was false. But denying God’s
omniscience is not biblically defensible[6], a
popular view, nor is it likely that Davis
denies it. Unfortunately, Davis
has not proposed any other alternatives, nor explained how errors being found
in God’s words do not make God a liar. Until he does so, his “rhetorical
device” charge more accurately describes his own objection.

            Perhaps another objection could be
made claiming that though the premises are true, the conclusion does not
follow. This would be difficult to maintain considering the apparent validity
of the argument and the biblical evidence for the premises. It is not likely,
then, that an effective objection could be found in this way.

 

[1] Davis,
Stephen T., 62.

[2] Davis,
Stephen T., 63.

[3]Davis has more recently
stated: “Early in my career I wrote a brief critique of biblical inerrancy in
favor of what I called biblical infallibility. Although I still embrace its
overall approach, I now regard some of the arguments used in that book as
unconvincing, and I am now more familiar with more nuanced ways of
understanding the concept of ‘biblical inerrancy’ than were available in 1977.”
But Is It All True? The Bible and the
Question of Truth (Grand Rapids,
MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2006)
92. Davis’s
arguments from 1977 are still worth conversing with, however, because he does
not specify which ones he now believes are unconvincing, and because his views
were (and are) fairly representative of many Christians who reject inerrancy.

[4] Davis, The Debate About the Bible, 54. He made
a similar statement in his more recent work on the subject: “In some important
sense, God speaks to us in the Bible.” But
Is It All True? 87.

[5]Davis, The Debate About the Bible, 60.

[6] This has
been a significant debate over the past decade between a mass of traditional
omniscience defenders and only a few objectors, usually called open theists. It
is not clear that open theism ever gained a following warranting the attention
it received. Regardless, verses that teach God’s omniscience include 1 John
3:20, Hebrews 4:13, and Job 28:24, for example.

*Part 6 will conclude with reflections on why the doctrine of inerrancy is important.

Category Posted in Main Page, Roger's Posts, Theology Comments No Comments »

A Defense of Biblical Inerrancy, Part 4

Date August 25, 2007 Posted by Roger Overton

Part 1 and Part 2 on the definition
Part 3 on the first half of the argument.

Thus, the Bible generally teaches
its own divine authorship rather explicitly. In essence, the Bible teaches that
its very words are inspired by God, originating from Him. Geisler and Nix summed
it up well: “The cause of inspiration is God, the means is the men of God, and
the end result is the word of God in the language of men.”[1]
But what does inspiration have to do with inerrancy? The connecting point is
the character of God. Regarding the Bible’s authority, Bishop N.T. Wright
claims “that the phrase ‘authority of scripture’ can make Christian sense only
if it is a shorthand for ‘the authority of the triune God, exercised somehow
through scripture.’”[2]
Likewise, the truthfulness of the Bible only makes sense when unpacked as the
truthfulness of God demonstrated by His words that comprise the Bible.

The Bible has much to say of God’s
character. In regards to God’s truthfulness, Paul referred to “God, who never
lies,” in Titus 1:2. Numbers 23:19 states “God is not a man, that he should
lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind.” And more strongly,
Hebrews 6:18 claims “it is impossible for God to lie.” The Bible applies God’s
truthfulness directly to God’s words, such as in John 17:17 “Sanctify them in
the truth; your word is truth.” Earlier in John, Jesus claimed that scripture [God’s
words] “cannot be broken” (10:35). The Psalmist poetically exclaimed, “Forever,
O Lord, your word is firmly fixed in the heavens” (Psalms 119:89).

 Another line of argument flows from the
Bible’s standard for prophecies. According to Deuteronomy 18:22, “when a
prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or
come true, that is a word that the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken
presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him.” There is no room for a prophet
by this standard, someone who claims to speak God’s words, who utters any falsehood.
Since God cannot speak falsely, the Bible affirms that those who speak for him
cannot speak falsely. If someone claims to speak for God, and not everything
they say is true, then the implication is not that God has spoken falsely, but
that the person claiming inspiration has. Thus, when the Bible claims to be the
very words of God, it claims to be truthful in all things.

The argument being put forward can
be summarized in this way:

1.      The
Bible claims that it is comprised of the very words of God.

2.      The
Bible claims that it is impossible for God to lie and His words are always
true.

3.      Therefore,
the Bible implicitly claims that everything it affirms is true.

In other words, the Bible
implicitly teaches that it is inerrant. Such a conclusion is more modest than is
usually offered by inerrantists. Most would prefer a conclusion stating that
the Bible is, in fact, inerrant, rather than merely stating that the Bible
claims to be inerrant. This will be addressed shortly. However, objections to
this argument should first be addressed.


[1] Geisler
and Nix, 39.

[2] Wright,
N.T. The Last Word: Beyond the Bible Wars
to a New Understanding of the Authority of Scripture (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2005) 23.

*Part 5 will briefly consider some objections to the argument.

Category Posted in Main Page, Roger's Posts, Theology Comments 21 Comments »

In the Scope 8/22/07- On Mormonism

Date August 23, 2007 Posted by Roger Overton

Over the last few weeks, some of our friends have been interviewed by the media…

ABC World News on Mitt Romney: Faith Matters. They interviewed Keith Walker and Bill McKeever while they were witnessing at the Manti Pageant in June.

Last week Frank Pastore interviewed Matt Vessey, Craig Hazen, and Bill McKeever on the controversial “friendship ministry” of Standing Together Ministries. Jeff Downs has posted the audio from both hours of the radio show.

During the radio show Pastore played some clips from a DVD made by ex-Mormon James Spencer. Information on the DVD is available here.

Opening this Friday in theaters is a controversial film called September Dawn. Jon Voight plays the second President of the LDS Church, Brigham Young, as he ordered the massacre of 120 pioneers passing through the Utah Territory in 1857. Yesterday, Hugh Hewitt interviewed Jon Voight and director/writer Christopher Cain for two hours:  The first hour and the second hour.
 

Category Posted in Main Page, Mormonism, Roger's Posts Comments 1 Comment »

A Defense of Biblical Inerrancy, Part 3

Date August 20, 2007 Posted by Roger Overton

Here's Part Three of my paper on inerrancy. Part One and Part Two discussed the definition.

A Defense of the Bible’s Claim to Inerrancy

           With an appropriate definition of inerrancy in hand, the next step is to assess whether or not the Bible claims inerrancy for itself, and if it does, to what degree it does so. Philosopher Stephen T. Davis said no. “The Bible does not teach inerrancy, nor does inerrancy seem to be presupposed or implied by what it does teach.”[1] He was correct in that the Bible does not explicitly teach inerrancy. As with many church doctrines, such as the trinity, the term inerrancy is not in the text. New terms are usually introduced to help distinguish between differing views about a subject, even if the views are not new. Thus, inerrantists believe that though the term inerrancy is not in the Bible, the concept is implicitly taught therein.

            The first passage most people turn to when discussing the integrity of the Bible is 2 Timothy 3:16-17. “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.”(ESV[2]) The claim for divine authorship of scripture is of primary importance. The Bible is not simply inspired as a poet might be inspired by a beautiful sunset. Scripture was “breathed out” by God, meaning its origin and authorship comes from Him. “All” likely refers to the Old Testament, so this claims that every bit of the Old Testament is the Word of God. The word for “scripture” indicates that the subject is the written record of the Old Testament rather than the simply the concepts or intentions of the record[3]. So, this passage claims divine authorship for every writing contained in the Old Testament.

            Several other passages attribute Old Testament writings to God, such as Hebrews 1:1, John 10:34-35, and 2 Peter 1:19-21. Clearly, the Bible regards Old Testament scripture as the very words of God, but what of the New Testament? The most comprehensive statement is found in 2 Peter 3:16, where the author equates Paul’s writings with “the other Scriptures,” the Old Testament. Paul also made several claims throughout his letters that he was speaking for God[4]. Since Paul’s writings account for a large portion of the New Testament, this covers a lot of ground.

One of John’s letters is broader but less clear: “We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth from the spirit of error.” (1 John 4:6, ESV) “We” likely refers to the apostles, the witnesses of Christ discipled to teach His words. The claim to have God’s authority assumes some sort of inspiration (See also 1:5). The point is strengthened when coupled with Jesus’ promise in John 14:26 that the Holy Spirit “will bring to rememberance all that I have said to you” (ESV). It is believed by many that all the books of the New Testament were written by the apostles, either directly or indirectly. If this is the case, then this point strongly suggests that all of the accepted New Testament is to be regarded as the words of God[5].

[1] Davis, Stephen T., The Debate About the Bible: Inerrancy versus Infallibility (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1977) 61.

[2] All scripture references are ESV.

[3] Norman Geisler and William Nix provide an important qualifier for this point: “This does not mean that each individual word is inspired as such but only as part of a whole sentence or unit of meaning. There is no implication in Scripture of an atomistic inspiration of each word but only of a holistic inspiration of all words used.” General Introduction to the Bible by Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986) 36.

[4] Such as 1 Cor. 4:1, Gal 1:11-12, 1 Thess. 4:8

[5] I. Howard Marshall made the point that “it would be wrong to suggest that the writers felt conscious that they were writing Scripture.” Biblical Inspiration (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1982) 29. In many cases, this seems accurate. However, whether or not the human authors had in mind God’s ultimate intentions for the writings does not affect the words and meanings of what they wrote, or whether those words and meanings originated with God.

Category Posted in Main Page, Roger's Posts, Theology Comments 6 Comments »

A Defense of Biblical Inerrancy, Part 2

Date August 17, 2007 Posted by Roger Overton

My paper on inerrancy continued…

Part 1

          Precisely what details are affirmed by scripture is a hermeneutical question; therefore, people can agree about inerrancy but differ on theological details such as the age of the earth. Pertinent to the definition of inerrancy is the question of whether every category of affirmations is included, or whether only some categories are included. Even the Fuller statement above implies that the Bible does make historical assertions. They simply deny that such assertions must categorically be true. According to them, only the primary or ultimate purpose of the Bible must be true. “The purpose of the Bible is not substitute for human science. The purpose of the Bible is to warn against human sin and offer us God’s salvation in Christ. Scripture infallibly achieves that purpose.”[1] In contrast, the traditional view of inerrancy does not draw such a severe distinction between the Bible’s primary purpose and any other purpose God may have had for it. Full inerrancy entails that every affirmation of the Bible is true regardless of the affirmation’s category or immediate purpose.

            An important qualifier is inherent in the definition of inerrancy. When asserting that the Bible is true in all that it affirms, inerrantists are speaking of the original manuscripts. Full inerrantists do not claim inerrancy for the manuscripts currently in possession. That would entail some sort of inerrant transmission that is neither claimed by the Bible nor reasonably possible considering the many discrepancies between manuscripts. However, the admission of modern discrepancies does not make the doctrine of inerrancy irrelevant. If the text had errors to begin with, then accumulated more errors through centuries of transmission, confidence in the reliability and subsequent authority of the text could not be strong. However, if the text was originally without error, and it can be shown that few or no substantial changes have been made through transmission, then confidence in the integrity and authority of the text ought to be strong. Greg Bahnsen concluded his outstanding chapter on this subject noting “the results of textual criticism confirm that we possess a biblical text that is substantially identical with the autographa… Accordingly the doctrine of original inerrancy can be commended to all believers who are sensitive to the authority of the Bible as the very Word of God and who wish to propagate it as such today.”[2]

[1]Rogers, Jack, “The Church Doctrine of Biblical Authority” in Biblical Authority ed. Jack Rogers (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1977) 46.

[2] Bahnsen, Greg L., “The Inerrancy of the Autographa” in Inerrancy ed. Norman L. Geisler (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1970) 192-193. The recent Reinventing Jesus ed. J. Ed Komoszewski, M. James Sawyer and Daniel B. Wallace (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2006) provides an up-to-date analysis of the reliability of New Testament manuscripts.

Category Posted in Main Page, Roger's Posts, Theology Comments No Comments »

A Defense of Biblical Inerrancy, Part 1

Date August 17, 2007 Posted by Roger Overton

Over the next week or two, I'll be posting selections from a paper I wrote last year arguing for the doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy. Even though the paper states so, I would like to make it clear that my argument is directed to those Christians who hold that the Bible is inerrant only in some areas (such as faith and practice), but not all areas in which it makes affirmations.

    At the foundation of Christian doctrine lies the integrity and authority of the Old and New Testaments. Though it is typically claimed that specific beliefs about the Bible are not necessary for salvation, they do provide the logical foundation for necessary beliefs such as Jesus’ death being the necessary and sufficient sacrifice for human sin. Due to its foundational role, the Christian view of the Bible is not a subject to be taken lightly.

Historically, Christians have affirmed the utter truth of the scripture, claiming its divine authorship renders it trustworthy and authoritative. With the advent of textual criticism, however, many Christians have sought to uphold the authority of the Bible, while at the same time admitting it contains certain kinds of errors. This paper will first explore a suitable definition for inerrancy, the historical position of the church universal, followed by a biblical and theological defense for the Bible’s claim to be inerrant. Potential objections will then be considered, and the paper will conclude with consideration for why the Bible’s claim to inerrancy is important. The ultimate argument presented in this paper is directed to Christians who affirm the Bible’s truthfulness in matters of faith and practice, but deny its inerrancy in other categories.

Defining the Doctrine of Inerrancy

            Some authors needlessly complicate the defining of inerrancy. Some, such as Clark Pinnock, suggest “inerrancy begs clear definition.”[1] However, it is only those who deny the full inerrancy of the Bible who seem to be confused. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, for example, clearly defines inerrancy as “being free from all falsehood, fraud or deceit.” Millard Erickson sheds more light on this: “The Bible, when correctly interpreted in light of the level to which culture and the means of communication had developed at the time it was written, and in view of the purposes for which it was given, is fully truthful in all that it affirms.”[2]

           There is nothing unclear or confusing about the definition of inerrancy unless it is limited in its application and thus used in a non-traditional[3] manner. Limitations commonly suggested deal with matters of history, science, and geography. A statement on Fuller Theological Seminary’s website put it this way: “Where the focus switches to an undue emphasis on matters like chronological details, precise sequence of events, and numerical allusions, we would consider the term misleading and inappropriate.”[4] Christians in this camp usually consider their position to be “limited inerrancy” or simply “infallibility” (meaning they affirm Scripture’s infallibility but not its full inerrancy). Thus, by looking at what is denied by those in the limited inerrancy camp, a clearer picture emerges of traditional or full inerrancy. Limited inerrancy claims that even if scripture affirms certain types of historical details, those affirmations are not necessarily true, and in some cases “clearly” false, even though they were divinely authored. Alternatively, full inerrancy means that if scripture affirms something, that affirmation is true and trustworthy due to its divine source.

[1] Pinnock, Clark H. with Barry L. Callen, The Scripture Principle: Reclaiming the Full Authority of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1984, 2006) 272.

[2] Erickson, Millard, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1983, 1998) 259.

[3] Though the term inerrancy is historically recent, the church has affirmed the content of the term throughout history. See John Gerstner’s chapter “The Church’s Doctrine of Biblical Inspiration” in Foundations of Biblical Authority ed. James Montgomery Boice (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1978) 23-58. Inerrancy referred to the historical understanding of the church until the second half of the 20th century when varying definitions were introduced.

[4] Fuller Theological Seminary, “What We Believe and Teach” (http://www.fuller.edu/provost/aboutfuller/believe_teach.asp) Accessed December 31, 2006.

** Part 2 will continue with a look at how some people have sought to limit the doctrine and the qualifier that is inherent in the definition.

Category Posted in Main Page, Roger's Posts, Theology Comments No Comments »

Facebook, Myspace, and the New Media

Date August 15, 2007 Posted by Roger Overton

Over the past few days I’ve seen a number of articles claiming
that Facebook is growing faster than Myspace…

Are MySpace Users Spacing Out?
The Facebook Generation Gap (HT: Scriptorium Daily)
MySpace Popularity with Teens Fizzles

The one that really caught my attention was “Social
Networking and Class Warfare” by Steven Levy. He discussed a recent study that
found an interesting link between class and which network people belong too:

“The goodie two shoes, jocks, athletes and other 'good'
kids are now going to Facebook. These kids tend to come from families who
emphasize education and going to college.” MySpace is still home for
“kids whose parents didn't go to college, who are expected to get a job
when they finish high school.”

Facebook began as, and is still, primarily focused around
college networks. So it seems it should follow that there is more of an
upper-class atmosphere there than on Myspace. I think aesthetics also has
something to do with it as well. Many people on Myspace overload their profiles
with obtrusive graphics and obnoxious music (not to mention the ads). Facebook,
on the hand, has a consistently clean and professional look, which is likely
more preferred by educated and professional consumers.*

One implication of this division (general as it is), is that
advertises will likely go where the consumers have more money, and this is
likely to be Facebook. In the long run, I suspect Facebook will be more
profitable.

However, I think it’s more interesting (and profitable) for us to consider how
Christians can use these networks for God’s glory. Due to Facebook’s group
features, I think it provides more avenues for discussion and connecting with
non-Christians. I’m suggesting Christians abandon Myspace, but I am suggesting
our time may be most economically spent in Facebook if we are to engage these
networks for advancing God’s kingdom.

I’ll have a bit more to say about this in the coming days,
but I’m interested in your feedback. Those of you who have dabbled in these
networks, what opportunities do you see for evangelism or Christian community?
Even if you’ve stayed away from these networks, I’m interested in your reasons
for dis-involvement.

* It should also be noted that many people participate in
both networks. Unfortunately, I haven’t seen any statistics noting how many are
in both.

Category Posted in Main Page, New Media, Roger's Posts Comments 3 Comments »

Books I Can't Wait to Read

Date August 4, 2007 Posted by Roger Overton

Some fellow bloggers have been posting lists of book titles they'd like to see published. The Reformed Baptist Thinker has my favorites, but also check out Pyromaniacs ( I think they started it) and Triablogue. I decided to join in on the fun… so here's what we might see if these people changed their minds about things they're passionate about:
[Please note: These are jokes. If I wanted to accuse anyone on anything, I would provide a well laid out argument.]

Believers Under Water:
The True Reformed View of Baptism by Kim Riddlebarger & R. Scott Clark

Wasting Ages: Why You
Shouldn't Spend Any of Your Time Worrying About the Age of the Earth by Hugh
Ross & Ken Ham

The Unchanging Truths
About Prophecy Throughout the Bible by Wayne Grudem

In, With, and Over It:
Why Lutherans Should Give Up Their Confusing View of the Lord’s Supper by
Rod Rosenbladt

Philobiblion Christi:
How God’s Word Trumps Man’s Philosophies by William Lane Craig & J.P.
Moreland

He Isn’t Perfect: 10
Things I Don’t Like about George W. Bush by Hugh Hewitt

Our Prophetic God: God’s
Sovereign Knowledge of All Things Past, Present and Future by Greg A. Boyd

Oops! A Dozen or So
Centuries of Ecclesiastical & Theological Mistakes by Pope Benedict XVI

A Postmodern Creed:
What I Truly Believe in Plain English by Brian D. McLaren

God’s Glory Now: How
to Stop Living For Yourself & Give Everything to God by Joel Olsteen

Discovering Biblical
Hierarchy: Examining the Plethora of Verses We Twisted in Order to Advance Our
Feminist Agenda by CBE (Christians for Biblical Equality)

Category Posted in Main Page, Miscellaneous, Roger's Posts Comments 4 Comments »

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »