biblicalthought.com

1. Johnny B

   I would say to George, you serve a weak god if indeed him can call you and man has the power to not come. Your god is a god of confusion as well, if he sent his son to die with no plan behind it. If he die for all people and not all people that he died for don’t come when they are called then that god is powerless with no order behind his plan.

   The Biblical teaching of predestination come with a full understanding of the nature of God, His power, His righteousness, which He well use in the judging of people Who He calls to come to Him will come. It’s not because of anything we do because we are destine for hell because we are sinner, this is what we do because sin dwells in us. If God can not have us come to Him when He calls us to come to Him then He has no power over sinful man. Men do not desire God we are enemies of God, nothing can change that but God.

   Could you imagine what would happen to George if he came out and said he now understand the power of God to call those he died for and they came to He. Chuck would boot him, then where would he be. As long as you read the Bible with anti Biblical predestination glasses you’ll never come to the understanding of Biblical predestination.

   No knock on George I was there not long ago. Once my understanding had no preconceived ideas I understood and the Bible became a flowing story of God and His redemption for His people.

   Jan 27th, 2010

2. Stephen Macasil

   Mario!

   Good to read you again, brother. It’s amazing to see George keep coming back and repeating the same things without argument, even when his assertions have been refuted many times over.

   At this point George has not only been refuted, but has been shown to be irrational in continuing to repeat assertions that have already been refuted.

   If an argument is invalid or a premise is refuted, it is not rational to continue “walking in it” as if it had not been. Now I understand that George hasn’t claimed to me that he is a rational man, but as soon as anyone makes public truth claims they are instantly bound by the laws of logic to sustain them. If they are shown to be fallacious, it is as if they had been defeated. Imagine a prisoner of war in a jail cell acting as if he is still engaged in war. We would think that prisoner is out of his mind! We’d say, “that poor guy thinks he’s still on the battlefield. He doesn’t realize he’s been captured. He keeps yelling through the jail bars that he’ll never be caught and that our prisoner-capturing strategy is ineffective, etc.”

   I think of George in a similar way…

   Thanks for the post!

   Jan 27th, 2010

3. Mario Herrera

   Brothers and sisters, the issue is that George, in order to escape being held down by divine sovereignty, clings to the title of a blog, ” Why George Bryson Won’t Debate Anymore. He cries “lies, lies.” In another blog the writer wrote the following,

   “I think it’s fair to say that this is a very good example of when one’s presuppositions that are brought to the biblical text do not, in fact, cannot, withstand the scrutiny of it and yet the subject (i.e., the one holding to his presuppositions) persistently does all that he can to make sense out of his no longer sustainable preconceived ideas. After all, admitting to it would necessitate radical ramifications for one’s view of God, man, and the Bible, especially when it comes to the good ol’ Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate. I do not think it’s necessarily fair to say that Bryson wasn’t trying to honor God, however. That much I think we should give him credit for.”

   There is no secret! We all know George would love to debate again, Just as a fighter who is knocked out would want his opportunity to have a rematch. In an attempt to try and restore an hurt ego, everyone knows he’ll get knocked out the next time. So will it be with George in a second debate.

   George responded the following, “I do not have a problem with you finding disagreement with me on your web site. It actually helps me sell my books. I do not mind hearing that you cannot understand what I am saying-because it confirms my theory that many Calvinist cannot understand what they do not agree with or are committed to.” You can read the rest at http://nomocondemnation.blogspot.com/2009/07/james-r-white-vs-george-bryson.html.

   George goes into his same repetitions. I find it amazing that he says “I don’t mind that you cannot understand what I am saying-because it confirms my theory that many Calvinist cannot understand what they do not agree with or are committed to.” ??????????

   I’d like to know what “my theory” is because it is really George that cannot understand what he does not agree with or what he is committed to.

   Jan 28th, 2010

4. Mario Herrera

   Here is a comment from James White from his website about George Bryson:

   ” Now, I saw a lot of really bad argumentation going by as I was checking each page for citations of those three passages. It is clear that since our debate in 2002 Mr. Bryson has determined it would be best to create some kind of defense regarding John 6. Numerous pages in different sections are devoted to a very passionate, yet utterly muddled and incomprehensibly vain attempt to get around the teaching of the Lord in the synagogue in Capernaum. And though he directly quotes numerous Calvinists, all of whom point to the same textual issues (especially the fact that John 6:44 says all those who are drawn are also raised up), his tradition is so thick and so impenetrable that he continuously misses the point. In fact, he can go on to make these claims (p. 126):

   *

   Only in the imagination of a committed Calvinist do we see that all who are drawn by the Father come to Christ or believe in Christ.
   *

   Only in the imagination of the committed Calvinist do we see that being drawn by the Father means that the one drawn must come to Christ.
   *

   Only in the imagination of the committed Calvinist do we see that those who do not come to Christ were not drawn.

   I invite the reader to review John 6:37-44 for a tremendous example of the power of tradition displayed in these incredible statements. Is it my committed Calvinist imagination that those given by the Father and those drawn by the Father are the same group? Is it my committed Calvinist imagination that all the Father gives to the Son as a result of being given come to the Son (Bryson rejects this simple grammatical and textual fact). Is it just my Calvinist imagination that the “him” who is drawn in 6:44 is the “him” who is raised up (another plain textual fact Bryson ignores)? One thing is for certain: the words of the Lord Jesus recorded for us in this passage continue to refute every vain effort made by men to mute their testimony to God’s utter sovereignty in the matter of salvation.
   I should, however, note one positive thing: there are so many citations of good, solid Reformed sources in this book that I truly believe Mr. Bryson has unwittingly lent us a hand in “getting the word out.” Evidently he feels his replies are compelling, but in fact, most of the time, he simply does not provide a comprehensible, let alone a compelling, reply. Therefore, I truly believe we will see more folks coming to see the importance of rightly handling God’s truth in the matter of His sovereignty as a result of this book. The site is http://vintage.aomin.org/BlogArchives0104.html

   Jan 28th, 2010

5. Glenn Leatherman

   Howdy Mario,

   I have read George Bryson and have observed how he tries to make (inaccurate) distinctions even within Calvinistic doctrines. His Book, “The Dark Side of Calvinism” is really not a scholarly work in that he lumps most Calvinists into “hyper-Calvinism” because he wants to maintain “autonomous Free-will.” His definition of freedom is sloppy and inaccurate.

   Thanks for shining the light on this error.

   Feb 16th, 2010

6. George Bryson

   Hey Guys

   I missed you all. I hope you missed me. I have been traveling a lot recently and have to ration my time on the computer. In my absence I appreciate what you have done to keep my books on the radar. Books of a theological nature can be a “hard sell” sometimes. I believe in giving credit where it is due, and you folks deserve a lot of credit for the exposure my book seems to be getting. You know what they say-”no bad publicity. Anyway, I hope you are all happy and in good health and I am serious about this. Have a great day. I thought you might like to read some of what some of your comrades have have been saying about me as well as what some who do not seem to agree with you. Feel free to say anything you want about anything that is said-I know you do not need my permission anyway. Keep these quotes up as long as you long and be assured I will not send you a bill. In Christ, and still friends I hope.

   “George Bryson…has as much ability to write a systematic theology as I have to star in the NBA finals.” (a really short white guy I assume)

   “I think Bryson is theologically incompetent and an embarrassment to exegetes everywhere if you want to be offended by something.” (can anyone identify?)

   “The idea of him writing a systematic theology would be hysterically funny if not for the fact that he actually thinks he’s qualified to write one.” (what? No one disagrees)

   “There are some good exegetes in CC…don’t embarrass the whole group with this drivel.” (Now that really hurts!)

   Hi George,

   I met you several years ago in Starkville, MS when you spoke on Calvinism. I was on staff of a different church…I read your Statement of Faith. Wow! It’s more Baptist than the Baptist Faith & Message (the measuring stick for Baptist orthodoxy…). This is exactly what I have believed since I was saved in ‘73, but the Baptist Faith & Message is now fairly Calvinistic. Arghhh! … When I lived in Flagstaff, AZ I was involved with Calvary Chapel. Bob Irish (now in Ventura, CA) was my pastor. He’s a great guy. Keep on blessin’ folks, George!

   Concerning Bryson and Calvinism

   “…If Pastor Chuck wants to refute Calvinism, I plead with him to find people in the company who are qualified to do so.” The Calvinist moderator of what many consider an anti-Calvary Chapel pro-Calvinist website. (A Calvinist I think)

   The Dark Side of Calvinism

   There are a lot of books that have been written to promote the Reformed doctrine of redemption and reprobation. There are relatively few books that have been written to challenge what is more commonly referred to as the Calvinist doctrine of salvation and damnation. One reason is that most non-Calvinists have never taken the time to seriously look into what Calvin and Calvinism teaches. There was a day in which that may have been OK. Today, however, Calvinism is coming at the rest of us (aggressively) from all sides. The Calvinist doctrine of salvation and damnation is no longer confined (if indeed it ever was) to Presbyterianism, The Dutch Reformed, Particular or Reformed Baptists or a relatively few others that have gone down the Reformed road.

   Now there are “modified” dispensationalists like John MacArthur passionately promoting the Calvinist doctrine of salvation and damnation through “Lordship Salvation, doctrine” a variation and expansion of the fifth point of Calvinism (i.e., perseverance of the saints). A few years ago a Charismatic Calvinist was practically unheard of. Today, John Piper is not only one of the most popular Evangelicals in America he is one of the most outspoken and ardent defenders of Calvinism in the country as well. Men like MacArthur and Piper will not likely replace the R.C. Sproul’s or the Lorraine Boettner’s in the Reformed community, but they are helping swell the numbers of those who embrace Reform doctrine (not to be confused with the Reformation). We now have hyper-Calvinism as well as the more common variety of Calvinism called hypo-Calvinism (i.e., “mainstream Calvinism) that sounds a lot ( or exactly) like what used to be called “extreme” Calvinism.

   What we need today are a few more Biblicists that can and will graciously, carefully, prayerfully and scripturally answer Calvinism. I have known George Bryson since before he was a student of mine at Western Theological Seminary. This was back a few decades when we were both much younger. If you presently share the convictions of Calvinism and are committed to the cause of Calvinism, George’s book The Dark Side of Calvinism may leave you feeling more than a little uncomfortable. For that he does not apologize. I can recommend The Dark Side of Calvinism and his earlier primer titled The Five Points of Calvinism-Weighed and Found Wanting, not only because in them he fairly represents the Reformed doctrine of salvation and damnation but because in them he also clearly and scripturally refutes the Reformed doctrine of salvation and damnation.

   If you believe that what the Bible says about why some are saved and others damned is important, The Dark Side of Calvinism is must reading for you. If you are a Calvinist, it may not only make you think, but it should also help you rethink Calvinism. If you read reviews about a book before or after you read the book, you may have noticed that George’s books typically average two and ½ stars out of five. Look closer. It is not because many people rate his books with 2 and ½ stars. Rather, it is because committed Calvinists almost always give him a one star (the worst rating a book can receive) and almost everyone else that takes the time to read and rate his books gives him five stars (the best rating they can give a book). You may love The Dark Side of Calvinism because it exposes the dark side of Calvinism (in the light of Scripture) or you may hate it for the same reason (i.e., because it exposes the dark side). Either way, it is much more likely that this book will keep you awake than put you to sleep.

   Dr. Earl D. Radmacher

   Former President of Western Baptist Theological Seminary

   (Could a really educated man say such things?)

   “You can have John 3: 16 or John Calvin”. Much to his credit, Bryson displays a strong bent to serious scholarship…something notably deficient in much of popular evangelical propoundings. He employs no `straw man’ mischaracterizations, instead citing prominent Calvinists themselves, Bryson intends to be both accurate and thorough. Some will think he is too thorough; by the middle of the book he has completely refuted both Calvinist logic and Calvinist exegesis–in fact he has successfully demonstrated that the consistent Calvinist must practice the dubious art of eisegesis (pressing a meaning into a text, as required by an immovable presupposition), rather than the necessary practice of exegesis (drawing a meaning from a text)…On some points Bryson’s theology and soteriology depart considerably from mine…but he knows his topic here and he knows the arguments of those who would oppose him. His book deserves a large readership within the evangelical community, especially among Calvinists and those potentially tempted by Calvinism’s `happy face’ (unconditional election [to life]) but not cognizant of its `dark side…(On-line review-by Wesley Janssen)

   Excellent, Logical Rebuttal To Calvinism-This book puts into words the way I’ve always felt about the sovereignty of God and the accountability of Man. I appreciated the way the author refutes Calvinism using logic. I especially liked the section where he shows how Calvinists skew the argument by only presenting two alternatives. (Have you stopped beating your wife, yes or no)…Thanks for a great, meaty yet readable/understandable book! (On-line review by Yeshua’s Girl)

   An Excellent, In-Depth Examination of the Problems with Calvinism- George Bryson knows the teachings of Calvinism better than any Calvinist I’ve ever met. This book is an excellent, well-researched, thoroughly footnoted, in-depth, Biblical examination of where Calvinism has departed from the Scriptures. If you have been struggling with Calvinism, or have questions about Calvinism, you’ll find this book very helpful. (Charlie Campbell-Evangelical Author/Apologist-Always Be Ready Apologetics).

   EXCELLENT BOOK! Once I picked it up I could not put it down. Point after well thought out points were made and the researched content was eye opening! If you are in need of a balanced book on Calvinism, then this is the one for you my friend! (On-line review by Blessed John “phototiger”)

   The Dark Side of Calvinism by George Bryson is another light in the spectrum of books dispelling the gloom of Calvinism. Up until a few years ago, there were very few books challenging the labyrinth of Calvinistic logic, but recently, several books have been written, each with their own strengths. Laurence Vance’s The Other Side of Calvinism is an excellent source for seeing in their own words what Calvinists teach and believe. C. Gordon Olson’s Beyond Calvinism and Arminianism: An Inductive, Mediate Theology of Salvation contains some of the strongest exegetical arguments against Calvinism that exist. Dave Hunt added his weight with the striking book What Love Is This?

   Bryson’s book is a mixture of these others. Like Vance, he has numerous quotes from Calvinistic authors. Like Olson, he includes exegetical arguments. Like Hunt, he employs logic to show the illogic of Calvinism. Bryson’s real strength, however, is in the tone of the book. His book is full of grace. Of all the books written against the so-called “Doctrines of Grace” his is the most gracious. This is an amazing feat considering that his primary purpose was to show the Scriptural abuses, logical sinkholes, and foreboding theological implications inherent in the Calvinistic system.

   One way he was able to accomplish his gracious tone was through numerous and memorable illustrations which cleverly shed light on the illogic of the Calvinistic logic (e.g. pp. 80, 83, 89, 97, 353). Of course, I don’t think Calvinists are amused, no matter how gracious Bryson is, for he says “it is the ‘distinctives’ of the Reformed faith that are of concern to me and are the focus of this book” (p. 16). He wants to make sure his readers understand that only Calvinism is under attack—not Calvinists…victims of their own theology (pp. 16-17).

   The Calvinistic crimes Bryson is most concerned with revolve around three central distinctives: the doctrine of reprobation (chaps 2-3; p. 31), the idea that God causes sin (p. 17, 68-69), and the Calvinist’s lack of assurance (pp. 245, 268, 270-71, 284, 286). Though most Calvinists deny all three of these teachings, Bryson shows that consistent Calvinists must either believe these things, or reject their entire system. The logic of Calvinism—the good, the bad and the ugly – stands or falls together (pp. 49-53, 275).

   Since this is the nature of Calvinism (p. 51), Bryson does not feel compelled to deal with the five points of Calvinism as traditionally presented, namely, TULIP. Nor does he begin with what is considered the “weakest link”: Limited Atonement. Instead, Bryson takes the bull by the horns and begins at the central and strongest point—Unconditional Election (chaps 2-3). From there he goes on to deal with Limited Atonement (chaps 4-5), Irresistible Grace (chaps 6-7), Total Depravity (chaps 8-9), and Perseverance of the Saints (chaps 10-11).

   Each of the five points is dealt with in two chapters. The first explains the point using numerous Calvinistic quotes. If you want to know what Calvinists teach, you don’t have to trust Bryson to tell you; he lets them tell you in their own words. The second chapter of each point is devoted to the Scriptural and logical refutation of the point just explained. Bryson closes out the book with what is often called the “Sixth Point of Calvinism”—the Sovereignty of God (chap 12) and a summary chapter (chap 13).

   …I found many references where the Gospel was presented as faith alone in Christ alone (pp. 30, 121, 130, 154, 171, 176, 177, 189, 190, 191, 192, 196, 199, 202-203, 205, 206, 207, 225, 231, 244, 246-49, 348, 349, 350, 352, 356, 366, to name a few). In one place, he very clearly states that “While it must be emphasized that we bring nothing but faith, it must also be emphasized that we must bring faith. …Requiring the lost to bring faith is not to ask the lost to make a contribution to their salvation, but it is a consistent reminder that salvation is all of God and not at all of man” (p. 244, italics his).

   …In the same vein, he takes Calvinists to task for their weak stance on assurance. Because of their doctrine of perseverance of the saints, he forcefully points out that no one who believes in the Calvinist doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints can have assurance of salvation (pp. 245, 268, 270-71, 284, 286). I love his statement on p. 286 that says, “The Calvinist doctrine of salvation provides no more assurance of salvation than Arminianism does, and perhaps less.” (Jeremy Meyers-book reviewer for Grace Evangelical Society (GES)).

   The Five Points of Calvinism

   Great critique of the Calvinist Doctrine…I found this book incredibly simple to comprehend, yet insightful and convincing. This is a manageable, well-balanced read for anyone interested in a critique of Calvinism. Without name-calling (as some so-called “Christian” reviewers do on these webpages and thus give a very poor image of a Christian church in America), George Bryson presents a structured, Bible-based presentation of Calvinism’s inconsistencies….

   Wonderful summary and critique of Calvinism and its flaws… The issues raised with Calvinism still remain very hotly debated subjects within the Christian world. I came across this little gem while studying issues related to flaws inherent in Calvinistic doctrine. It should be noted that I neither subscribe entirely to nor wish to defend Arminianism by disagreeing with Calvinism. One of the dangers involved with studying these doctrines lies in the temptation to choose either/or – Calvinist or Arminian, which simply creates a false dichotomy and discourages thorough contemplation and examination of scripture. However, the issue here is Calvinism. One of the main dangers of Calvinism lies in that Calvinistic doctrine does not send up the red flag to most Christians like other false doctrines may. This is because although the typical Christian may not be aware of it, Calvinistic leanings have become standard doctrine for many evangelical Christian churches all over the world. In fact, many Christians believe Calvinistic doctrine and may not even know it, at least in terms of being “Calvinist” doctrine.

   This book’s value stems first from its conciseness and accuracy and should be in the library of any Christian because how one views these issues literally determines how you perceive God, other people, and reality itself. Second, perhaps the most convincing and credible reason the book represents such a valuable find lies in the fact that instead of trying to explain Calvinism himself, Bryson lets Calvinists do the explaining for themselves. This approach becomes extremely telling with regard to the inescapable flaws of the Calvinistic perspective. Thirdly, Bryson’s arguments remain extremely sound (both scripturally and logically) throughout.

   Structurally, the book has two parts. The first deals with what Calvinism says and is according to the most influential and famous Calvinists in history. The second deals with the theological and philosophical implications (i.e. why Calvinism is wrong) of the Calvinistic perspective.

   These issues (the five points of Calvinism and the issues they in turn raise) remain among the most critical of the entire Christian worldview and should be understood thoroughly and refuted readily. This book provides for and facilitates both. Highly recommended. (On-line Review by J.D.)

   There are four or five major Christian cults (those which use the name of Christ and somewhat rely on the Bible as the basis for their beliefs), but Bryson introduces Calvinism as an additional system of theology to beware of. Unfortunately, Calvinism has been developed, systematized, and reduplicated in most Christian commentaries, theology books, and even institutes of higher education. It is not recognized by most as a man-made system of thought that significantly departs from the teachings of the Bible. Whereas the Bible teaches that 1) man can and does respond to the truth of the gospel, that 2) the believer (on the basis of his position in Christ) is selected for service and ultimate glorification (in accord with the foreknowledge of God), that 3) the Lord Jesus died for and redeemed the whole world of men without exception, that 4) man is indeed able to refuse the gospel message and is not irresistibly forced to believe it by the Holy Spirit, and that 5) the believer can utterly fail in his Christian life (and therefore lose blessings in this life and rewards in the life to come, but can’t lose or forfeit the non-revocable eternal life promised by God), it is abundantly clear that Calvinism, as a system, is an unfortunate aberation of true biblical doctrine. Bryson, in this work, makes the faults of the Calvinistic system abundantly clear. Bryson does a brilliant job of summarizing the teachings of reformed theology in the area of salvation. (On-line review by Tony Badger “The Badger”)

   One of the best short treatments of Calvinism in print. I bought this book from Amazon last year, and I was greatly impressed with it. One of the most important points it stresses is that the Calvinism-Arminianism debate is actually improper, because there exists a THIRD (more biblical) alternative that is neither Calvinist nor Arminian. Alas, that point is forever lost on critics from the Reformed camp especially, who have been brainwashed by their elders into believing that all non-Calvinists like Bryson are “Arminians”. And predictably, some reviewers are upset because Bryson dares to insinuate that their sacrosanct Reformed tradition departs from scripture on the salvation issue — which it surely does. Dave Hunt explains the details of all that in his 600-page book, but George Bryson does a very admirable job in pointing out the basic scriptural weaknesses of Calvinism in this relatively brief volume. And, in spite of reviewer accusations to the contrary, I believe Bro. Bryson does so with a gracious spirit. Way to go, George! (On-line review by Terry L. Burnett-USA.Net)

   Concise, Fair, Irenic, Primer on Calvinism. Hats off to George Bryson for the best concise guide on the Five Points of Calvinism that I have read to date. In all fairness to Calvinists of all stripes Bryson devotes the first half of this small format 120 page book to letting the Calvinists describe their own system–from the donkey’s mouth so to speak. Since there are so many flavors of Calvinism, he graciously presents their “soft” and “hard” takes on the T.U.L.I.P. The second half is his rebuttal to each of the five points using Scripture. Bryson rightly points out, as I have in other reviews, “that there is no Calvinism without [all] the Five Points. I agree with Bryson and mainstream Calvinists that there is no such beast as a “moderate” or “3, 4-point Calvinist”. The five points stand or fall as a unit. However, being a “non-Calvinist” doesn’t mean you are an Arminian either. A moderate or mediate view disagrees with both of the extremes. Biblicists, whether they realize it or not, actually disagree with all five points and not just Limited Atonement. Bryson correctly says “As long as Christians think the Calvinist doctrine of Total Depravity is simply that all have sinned; or that the Calvinist distinctive of unconditional election is that salvation is unmerited; or even that the Calvinistic view of perseverance can be equated with the doctrine of “once saved always saved,” they will continue to incorrectly think of themselves as Calvinists.” I wish some of our leading biblical/dispensational theologians and teachers would wake up to this fact and stop confusing other believers by calling themselves a “something or other Calvinist”! For more on this important distinction see also Samuel Fisk’s excellent work Calvinistic Paths Retraced. Other insights include, “The problem with the Calvinistic view of perseverance is similar to the problem of the Arminian view of perseverance. That is, in Calvinism and Arminianism, justification and sanctification are hardly (if at all) distinguishable.”, and “Calvinism denies the believer assurance whereas Arminianism denies the believer security.” Finally, Bryson couldn’t have summed up Calvinism any better “A person will either be saved or damned FOR all eternity because they were saved or damned FROM all eternity”. To paraphrase the Calvinist professor James Daane; all roads in Calvinism lead to reprobation. Too long to quote here, but please be sure to check out the quote on page 118 from Calvinist theologian John S. Feinberg…very candid and telling remarks about his own system!! This little book is highly recommended. I also look forward to reading Bryson’s in-depth book entitled The Dark Side of Calvinism: The Calvinist Caste System. (On-line review by Whosoever Will “Biblicist”.

   What? You think he has been brainwashed?

   Feb 17th, 2010

7. Brad B

   The hireling surfaces and has no shame about it.

   Feb 20th, 2010

8. john

   George:

   Im glad you feel good about your ‘amen corner’. The Calvies have theirs too. Just so you know the Mormons also have theirs and so do the JW’s.
   Human back-slaps validate nothing and you know it. The anti-Calvinists dont care 1 iota about our recommendations from pro-Calvinist readership.

   “Consistent Calvinism”. Ive noticed that is the way to bait-and-switch.
   The way thats used is,….”If the Calvinist were consistent then they would believe the conclusions Ive stated”. Then George you go on to tell the Arminian believers what we believe when in fact we dont believe those things and we dont arrive at those same conclusions. So you switch what we do believe for what you say we believe.
   The way you do this to convince others is to add your numerous quotes.

   George I read your “wieghed and found wanting book” and it was a very inaccurate book and the quotes were stated in a way to feed the reader your conclusions not to prove your conclusion. You did a good job in leading the witness and then get answers to questions you steered the argument toward. George its just plain dishonest and its not Christ-like.

   If your book was actually dangerous to the reformed theological position, the reformed theologians of today would have to really read it over and weigh in on your conclusions and your evidence that set back the reformed doctrines or 5 points.

   But, in fact no one is taking you seriously, none of the reformed theologians consider you even as dangerous as a fly in the ointment.

   What you do George is keep the Calvary Chapelites from going any farther with biblical truth than the trite and shallow teachings that Calvary Chapels have offered the body of Christ. Youre not advancing the kingdom George your keeping people confused about what the reformers taught Ive got young believers with anti-calvinistic mindsets simply because its black-balled by evil reports. Not that they can prove or can substantiate their disagreements with reformed teaching, but they are doing so on
   name association. Smithism is good, Calvinism is bad. Coursonism is good, boettner is bad.

   Yet. the comedic end is great appreciation for Edwards, Bunyan, Calvin, Piper, Mcarthur…why? Because as I heard from one Calvary Chapel attender…”Dude these guys are great and they teach the word with a depth I dont hear very often”.

   So how many recommendations does it take to make a rebuttal to Calvinism into a “highly recommended book?” I suppose as many as will read your book and never read Calvin or Piper or McArthur for themselves.

   John

   Feb 21st, 2010

9. a helmet

   If your book was actually dangerous to the reformed theological position, the reformed theologians of today would have to really read it over…

   It is rather doubtful that they would do that.

   Feb 22nd, 2010

10. Fivepointbaptist

    @John

    You pointed out something very important when you quoted George as saying, ”If the Calvinist were consistent then they would believe the conclusions I’ve stated.”

    He then goes on to tell his readers that Calvinist actually believe “such and such.” Well, I guess we could play that game as well.

    Since George believes in free will, and if he were consistent, he would have to deny divine inspiration regarding the scriptures; therefore, George Bryson denies divine inspiration.

    Feb 22nd, 2010

11. Stephen Macasil

    FPB,

    And if he (by implication) denies divine inspiration then he necessarily denies inerrancy, and if he denies inerrancy he denies the only grounds for objective theological knowledge, and without objective grounds for theological knowledge he cannot say with any certainty whether Calvinism is true or false – yet he’s written a book about it littered with such claims! LOL

    Feb 22nd, 2010

Reply to “George Bryson: Weighed and Found Wanting”