how i see it

I really wish there was someone more like R.C. Sproul, J.I. Packer, John Piper, Ken Gentry (or even myself) up there instead of Mark Driscoll.

He did an ok job debate-wise, but i don't see that he answered the important questions from a biblical perspective.

Why does God allow evil?
His response was basically...God gave us free will and it's our fault.
But that doesn't answer the question.

First, there is a misunderstanding that Deepak and Carlton seem to have on the purpose of life.
Many feel that the purpose of life is for people to be good, happy, comfortable, or something similar. It's man-focused.

The true purpose of life is to glorify God. And because of this purpose we must look at the question in a radically different way.

God is most glorified in Himself. The more facets of God that are revealed, the more glory He displays. If we were forever in the state of innocence prior to the fall we would never see some of the facets of God:
His mercy on sinners.
His love for the elect in dying for them.
His hatred of sin.
The seriousness of sin by what it cost to redeem us from it.
The power that God has over recreation and not only over creation.
etc, etc.

If it were not for sin we would be missing out on many facets of God...and these facets bring glory to Him, therefore sin serves God's purpose of bringing glory to Himself until the day that He does finally judge it and purge the new creation of it.

Imagine not knowing the love of God as displayed by Christ on the cross.

Todd: It was an interesting debate, though kind of pointless. Debating faith/religion is like penguins speculating about nuclear physics.

In the third one, when Driscoll is answering the question "why would God create Satan?"... he says that in order for there to be virtue, there must be the possibility of vice... that people and angels were given free will... and that Satan is an angel gone bad. That means that without Satan people would still sin... so why does Satan get blamed? What influence does he have on anyone? And if people are the ones that create all this evil in the world, why does God take credit for all the good? Or rather.. why do we give God credit.

I'ma stop here before it gets too boring :P Was time well spent...


"Larry": Deepak's argument wasn't exactly convincing either (let's all learn to embrace our demonic selves, share 'em with the world. Dress them up, make play dates...) and between your fluffy, sophisticated words and egocentric attitude, I'd be surprised if yours persuaded anyone. Yes, because if you were up there instead of Mark Driscoll, the world would be a much better place today. I doubt anyone's opinions are weak enough to change that easily... and if they are, you shouldn't even want them on your side.

Deepak and Carlton have a misunderstanding on the purpose of life? Has God told you this or is that your arrogant self talking again? And you should think through your excuses as well... I'm pretty sure you mortals give God more than enough glory, why would he need to glorify himself? And if he's so perfect, don't you think he'd find a better way to glorify himself than... sin?

Lucy, without going too much into your statements (we can do that over coffee) I do want to point out that Driscoll did say something to the effect that Satan should not get all the blame. Sin entered the world because man chose to sin. Satan can tempt but can not make anyone do anything. Personal responsibility is far too often overlooked.

How was i being arrogant?
Mark Driscoll is just a man as I am.

And how was my answer...which centered around God...egocentric? It's when people make the ultimate purpose of life to be themselves...that's egocentric.

We don't decide the purpose of creation, God does. And since He created it for His glory...that's what it's for. We aren't in a place to judge God as if He were a mere man.

And i never said anything about "convincing" anyone...that's not my job. I simply would have preferred a more biblical position to be put forth than the one that Driscoll did.

The idea that there is no virtue without vice will run him into trouble because then God couldn't be without vice. It's simply incorrect, biblically.

I believe she pulls the idea of being arrogant from you comparing yourself to R.C. Sproul, J.I. Packer, John Piper & Ken Gentry. Driscoll is one of the most respected pastors and theologians in the US. While I agree that he did not say everything that I with 20/20 vision and not sitting in front of a huge audience would have liked, I think we have to cut him some slack. I am sure there is a lot he wishes he would have said, or things he thinks he should have said differently.
Good means nothing if there is no evil, that was his point. If there is no evil than what is good? There has to be a contrast.
You seem to contradict yourself with this argument because you make the point that sin brings out the many facets of God.

Driscoll's answer centered around God as well and for some odd reason he didn't sound as conceited as you :P God decides if we have a purpose? What about those that don't believe in God? What purpose do they have? And if he's only doing it to glorify himself then he isn't doing a very good job... most of the world doesn't even believe in this God. Seems like he either gets to glorify himself or give free will. Both don't seem to work.

I find it interesting that they had two Christians (not counting Pearson... don't even know what he was. Not really counting Lobert either... couldn't take her seriously. So more like 1.5 Christians) up against one atheist.. Wonder what would have happened if they had two :P At one point Driscoll said that good and evil are not equal... but are still in great conflict. Which made no sense to me... because if they're not equal, one is greater than the other... and if one is greater there wouldn't be a conflict. Or at least not a "great" one.

R.C. Sproul and the others are also mere men as i myself am. And i did put myself as a parenthetical...insinuating that i was not of the same ilk as those gentlemen.

I would disagree that Driscoll is a theologian. He's the Pastor of Mars Hill, but theologian would be an overstatement...especially with the errors that he put forth in the debate...as well as in other places where he has spoken.

If you want to see a good debate...with an actual theologian...on the existence of the Christian God you should check out Bahnsen vs. Stein...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6iEUanJbsw&feature=PlayList&p=75F2FF36C0ECC4A2&index=0

He has written multiple books on theology. I don't know of a theologian that i can not find something i disagree with.

Writings books doesn't make you a theologian. As far as i know he was trained as a pastor, which would include an M.Div. and perhaps a D.Min.

There's a difference between someone who knows about theology and a theologian.
A theologian must write a dissertation which adds something new to the field for his Th.D. while a pastor has to write a dissertation that is practical in nature for his D.Min.

To be a theologian he would need to be trained in theology through a Th.M., Th.D., Ph.D.

so what you are saying is that education is the only thing that would make someone a theologian? Interesting

By definition a theologian is a specialist in theology.

Anyone can write books on theology, and he was trained somewhat in that field, but not as a specialty.

I wouldn't call someone a lawyer just because they wrote books on law either. They would have to have the education to specialize in their field.

well if you follow that line of thinking then personal experience has no merit, therefore many writers who wrote books of the Bible are not theologians. I am not saying that to infer that Driscolls books are on any level close to scripture just I am just taking your statement to the logical end.

http://www.theopedia.com/Theologian

Since a theologian is someone who has been schooled in the discipline of theology, you shouldn't bestow the title on someone unless they have undergone the academic requirements.

A pastor and a theologian generally tackle much different questions. The pastor of a more practical matter, the theologian of a more academic matter.

I think Mr. Driscoll would agree with me that he is not a theologian.

Just to clarify, that doesn't mean personal experience "has no merit"...it just means it doesn't make you a theologian :)

Well I think we will have to agree to disagree. I hear your points, and I by no means agree with Driscoll on everything. Thanks for your input

Does it honestly give you that much satisfaction to "win" an argument as pathetic as if Mark Driscoll really is a theologian? Then in that case, I gotta try this... see for myself.

Mark Driscoll received a Master of Arts degree in exegetical theology. Making him a specialist. Making him a theologian... according to your argument anyway :] And Todd is right... you're saying that most of the people that wrote the Bible aren't theologians... and I'm pretty sure that they could interpret their writings better than R.C. Sproul, J.I. Packer, John Piper, Ken Gentry (and even yourself).

It's not a matter of winning an argument...it's simply a matter of truth.

Bringing the apostles into the argument is anachronistic.

The M.A. in Exegetical Theology is different from a Th.M. The Th.M. produces scholars whereas the M.A.E.T. does not as can be seen from Western's catalog (special attention to point #1)

The outcomes of the M.A.E.T. degree are:
1. Be a person whose Christ-like character and dependence upon the Holy Spirit are worthy of being emulated, and whose integrity imparts credibility to his/her ministry.
2. Be a person who understands his/her role in the furthering of God’s purposes.
3. Be a person who experiences interdependency with other believers.
4. Be a person with a global vision who thinks, acts and prays strategically.
5. Be able to engage in research in exegetical theological areas at an advanced level.
6. Be able to interpret and apply biblical texts using sound hermeneutical principles and the biblical languages.
7. Know the major themes and developments of God’s redemptive activity revealed in Scripture.
8. Know the historical tenets and contemporary significance of evangelical theology and practice.
9. Be able to think biblically and critically so that various truth claims can be effectively evaluated.
10. Be able to communicate God’s truth clearly, accurately, and convincingly.
11. Be a true life-long learner, building upon his/her seminary training.

The Th.M. outcomes are:
1. Be a scholar who appreciates and understands the various disciplines that contribute to evangelical scholarship and can articulate a model of integration of those disciplines and employ that model in his/her research and writing.
2. Be able to engage competently in high level research and articulate clearly and precisely his/her discoveries in both written forms (including a thesis) and oral presentations.
3. Be a person who has mastered the key concepts, themes, and skills of his/her Th.M. courses and can adequately defend his/her thesis before others.
4. Be able to interpret Scripture (a proficiency in the grammatical-historical method) with particular skills in textual criticism, lexicography, grammar, syntax, and genre awareness.
5. Know what biblical theology is and know how to engage in it, understanding how biblical theology affects both the exegesis of Scripture and systematic theology.
6. Know what systematic theology is and what are its proper sources, and know a methodology and how to employ that methodology in actually doing systematic theology.
7. Know the usefulness and role of historical theology in evangelical scholarship, being familiar with the most significant resources and knowing how to proceed in historical research.
8. Be able to recognize and appreciate the role of reason, logic, tradition, and world view in biblical and theological studies, and be able to interact with past and present philosophical and cultural issues which impinge on those studies.

Again, i think Driscoll would agree that he's no expert in the field...that's why he asked for the help of those he considered to have expertise so, "...that either Ravi Zacharias or Don Carson be invited to join me in representing the Christian side of the debate."