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

12. george bryson

    Gentlemen, Gentlemen

    Why the need to be so angry or hostile all the time. Even if you do live a long-life I do not think that it will be a happy life with all this (whatever it is you have built up inside) if you do not attempt to enjoy life a bit more. I do not hear this kind of hostility from Piper. In fact, he says he is enjoying God and I believe him. Do you? Maybe you should take up a hobby or something. Do I sound all that angry to you? I know you disagree with me-you are supposed to. You are a Calvinist and I am not. That is Ok-I can live with it. Besides as you have pointed out none of the really smart people are listening and if they are listening with an I.Q. higher than a toaster, they are buying it. Have a good night from the other side of the world or day from the other side of the world-In Christ, the non-Calvinist

    Mar 14th, 2010

13. george bryson

    Sorry-correction-there goes my theory about being inerrant!

    “Besides as you have pointed out none of the really smart people are listening to me and if they are listening with an I.Q. higher than a toaster, they are not buying it. Have a good night or day from the other side of the world-In Christ, the non-Calvinist that no one that is anyone is paying attention to”.

    Mar 14th, 2010

14. george bryson

    WHAT REFORMED REVIVAL?

    For many years I have repeatedly heard that all of the great missionary/evangelists of days gone by were Calvinists. Now I am frequently hearing about all of the people who are coming to Christ through the Gospel of Calvinism or the Doctrines of Grace or The Five Points of Calvinism (or whichever of these labels you prefer). I get calls and e-mails telling me that I must be blind not to see the great Reformed revival that is taking place all over the world. And I confess, if there is a great Reformed revival that is actually leading the lost to faith in Christ, I must be blind.

    I am not boasting or complaining when I say that I have been in full time ministry more than forty two years. I have lived and ministered all over America in many different cities and states. I have had my own talk show, and have talked to hundreds of thousands of believers over the years. I have also been the guest of others on their talk shows, including Calvinists. I have been the guest speaker at hundreds of churches over the decades I have been in the ministry. I have travelled to many countries and have spent more than 22 years travelling back and forth (almost monthly) to Russia. In all these years and in all of these places I have never seen evidence of this Reformed revival.

    In fact, I have never even met or talked to a Calvinist who told me they came to Christ through the preaching of the Reformed Gospel. I have interviewed some well-known and respected Calvinists (including R.C. Sproul Sr.) and they have all told me of coming to Christ through the ministry and message of a non-Calvinist. What am I supposed conclude from this? Am I missing something? When Calvinists refer to a great Reformed revival are they talking about the lost coming to Christ for salvation or they talking about the saved coming to Calvinism for a Calvinist kind of reformation?

    When I point this out my Calvinist friends (who all came to Christ knowing nothing about the Calvinist Gospel through non-Calvinist churches and evangelists) cry foul. They say that the Gospel (1 Cor. 15: 1-3) is the same but it is your understanding of the Gospel that is different once you become reformed. While that is true, would it not also strongly suggest that something is very enemic about the Calvinist Gospel. All the great Calvinist writers have told us what the Calvinist doctrines of grace are or what the Calvinist Gospel is. Why doesn’t anyone seem to use the Calvinist Gospel or use it effectively? After all, it is supposed to be the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes (Rom. 1: 16). Right?

    Please do not misunderstand me. I am not saying that as a Calvinist or believing as a Calvinist you have never led anyone to faith in Christ. Surely some Calvinists have led some non-Christians to Christ. I am simply saying that like the Prince of Preachers, Charles Spurgeon, you have to preach to the lost as if you were not a Calvinist and did not believe in or know about Calvinism to be effective in Evangelism. Think for a minute. Why do you suppose a lot of non-Calvinists really like Spurgeon? Do you think it could be because he preached a very non-Reformed Gospel as if there was no such thing as a Calvinist Gospel or a useful Calvinist Gospel while doing the work of an evangelist?

    Why do you suppose Spurgeon had so many critics among the Calvinists of his day? Do you really believe it was because they were just hyper-Calvinists? Do you think that it could be because they did not recognize the Gospel he preached as Reformed. Am I not saying that great Calvinist preachers today never lead the lost to saving faith in Christ. I am saying that when they preach to the lost, they preach a Gospel that is distinctively not Reformed. They answer the question “What must I do to be said?” as Paul and Silas did for the Philippian jailor (Acts: 16: 26-31). Why do you suppose D. James Kennedy was so effective with and through Evangelism Explosion? Or why do you suppose so many non-Calvinists like Evangelism Explosion? Do you think it could be because Evangelism Explosion (as I documented in my first book on Calvinism) ignores the Calvinist Gospel and uses one closer to the Gospel of the New Testament, the one many non-Calvinists have used for two-thousand years?

    I assume that a great preacher like Piper has led many to faith in Christ. I assume that a great preacher like MacArthur has led many to Christ. This is not about counting noses. It is about what gets those noses into the kingdom of God. Despite what they say the Calvinist Gospel says, when they preach to the lost, they do so as if there was no such thing as a Calvinist Gospel. Most of us (myself and especially included) could only dream of having a gift of preaching like a Piper or a MacArthur. No matter what they say the Gospel means or implies they never go near an unbeliever with such a Gospel. Why? I think you know why!

    In other words, these men are effective not because of their Calvinist Gospel but in spite of it and because they rely on something much closer to the Biblical Gospel when preaching to the lost. Still, I must ask, why it is so hard to find a Calvinist who came to Christ through a Calvinist ministry or in a Calvinist church? One reason is that Calvinist ministries and churches are much more focused on reaching (converting) the non-Calvinist believer for the cause of Calvinism than they are for reaching the lost for Christ. The enthusiasm that Calvinists feel for Calvinism (whatever it is) is only a revival of enthusiasm fo Refomed theolog. Sorry-not the same thing as a revival that leads the lost to the Savior.

    Finally, why is it that while I was planting churches in Russia by winning the lost to faith in Christ (not nearly as many as I would like to have won and would still like to win), I never saw many (if any) Calvinists engaged in evangelism? Now that there are a lot of non-Reformed believers that came to Christ (after the walls came down) I do see more Calvinists coming to the mission field. To date, I have never seen a Calvinist, a group of Calvinists, or a Calvinist church coming to Russia to start a church by winning the lost to faith in Christ. They seem to be coming to reach the already regenerate with the Gospel of Calvinism, which is about reformation and not regeneration or faith in our Savior.

    Just a few things to think about! In Christ, George

    Mar 14th, 2010

15. Mario Herrera

    George,

    I’m a Calvinist that is involved in evangelism. It is what I love to do! If you’d stop calling them Calvinists for the same of labeling them in a negative light and call them what they are, biblical, then your argument falls to the ground.

    There are many out there evangelizing George. Do you have that much information or been around the planet to make the statements you do? Just because you have not seen them, doesn’t mean they are not out doing ministry. You can be so contentious……….

    “They seem to be coming to reach the already regenerate with the Gospel of Calvinism, which is about reformation and not regeneration or faith in our Savior.”

    This is a statement made in ignorance. May God have mercy on you.

    Mar 14th, 2010

16. Mario Herrera

    I am coming to realize something important. I see God’s sovereign work in and through the modern evangelical churches. From Saddleback Church to Calvary Chapels….I meet more and more brothers and sisters becoming Calvinists and giving God the glory! Just this weekend I met 3 couples.

    God is on His throne. He is definitely using the Calvary Chapel system to save sinners and then brings them out into the doctrines of grace.

    Mar 14th, 2010

17. george bryson

    Hey Mario

    So cheer up? If this is what you mean by revival I had it all wrong. For once you and I may see eye to eye. The Reformed revival is a revival of Reformed theology and not much in the way of reaching the lost, Thanks for the clarification and for the show of solidarity. In Christ, George

    Mar 15th, 2010

18. george bryson

    Hey Mario

    I have a challenge for you.

    “If you [and company would] stop calling [me those who do not believe in the fatalism of Calvinism, Armenians,Syernetsist, Semi-Pelagian and man centered] for the sak of labeling [us] in a negative light and call [us] what we are, biblical, then [I would consider not calling you a Calvinist.

    But I thought you were proud of the lable and the association. My mistake. In Christ, George

    Mar 15th, 2010

19. george bryson

    I would think someone referring to me as “contentious” on this site, given all that you have “contentiously” said about so many others on this site, is like Danny Devito complaining about too many short people in Hollywood. I think you will see (if you review the record) that even after your many less than “godly” remarks about me, I have responded in a very civil and even charitable fashion toward you and others on this site. I could say ((what you have said about me) to you but If I did then I could not be very civil or charitable. Could I?

    Mar 15th, 2010

20. george bryson

    To the real issue. Someone on this site (probably a fan of mine) asked me if I have read Calvin. I can actually said I have read Calvin’s Institutes (the longer and finished version) in two English translations. I have also read all of his commentaries that I could find printed or on the Interenet, which I believe to be all but the book of Revelation. I honestly wonder how many Calvinists have actually read much about Calvin. Someting when I quote him at legnth and certainly in context (and with my own commentary or explanation of what he meant by what he said, I have been called everything but beutiful. The scholars and theologians of this website are of course, very well informed not just about what others say Calvin meant but by what Calvin said. Since it appears to me that we all want to get back the real issuesI would like to try your patience by quoting a few comments made by Calvin. I do not wish to argue with you over what Calvin said-he said what he said-I can leave it at that. What I would like to know is “can you agree with what he said at it is” or is it required that it be explain in ways that will make it palatable or even better understood. These are not trick questions. Questioning my motives for asking them may score you browny points with some friends but it will not advance the cause of Christ or of Calvinism that you seem to think are closely related and I disagree.

    “By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which He determined within Himself whatever He wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are predestined to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each have been created for one or other of those ends, we say that he has been create for life or death.”

    Just in case somone is not familiar of The Westminister Confesion viewed the same matter, here what it says:

    “According to the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men…are predestined unto everlasting life; and other are foreordained to everlasting death… These…men, thus predestined and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot either be increased or diminished.”

    Calvin explained that:

    “… Since the arrangement of all things is in the hand of God, since to Him belongs the disposal of life and death, He arranges all things by His sovereign counsel, in such a way that individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death, and are to glorify him by their destruction. … I, for my part, am willing to admit that mere prescience [foreknowledge] lays no necessity on the creatures … the dispute is superfluous since life and death are acts of the divine will rather than of prescience. If God merely foresaw human events, and did not also arrange and dispose of them at his pleasure, there might be room for agitating the question, how far his foreknowledge amounts to necessity; but since he foresees the things which are to happen, simply because he has decreed that they are so to happen, it is vain to debate about prescience, while it is clear that all events take place by his sovereign appointment.”

    And:

    “There is no random power, or agency, or motion in the creatures, who are so governed by the secret counsel of God, that nothing happens but what he has knowingly and willingly decreed … the counsels and wills of men are so governed as to move exactly in the course which he has destined.”

    Is Calvin going to far or have some Calvinist understood him to be saying something other than what he seems to be saying.? I am looking for an honest, civil response. Will I get one? In Christ, George

    Mar 15th, 2010

21. george bryson

    Someone on this site asked me if I had read Wayne Grudem. I can say that I have not only read Wayne Grudem but find is Systematic Theology useful when trying to undestand what Calvinists mean by what they say. I am not sure about you, but I accept Grudem’s basic understanding of Calvinism as consistent with mainstream Calvinism. Do you? I really appreciate the way Grudem explains what he believes Calvinists mean by predestination. Do you? More importantly do you agree with what he says:

    “The analogy of an author writing a play may help… In the Shakespearean play Macbeth, the character Macbeth murders King Duncan. Now (if we assume for a moment that this is a fictional account), the question may be asked, “Who killed King Duncan?” On one level, the correct answer is “Macbeth.” Within the context of the play he carried out the murder and is rightly to blame for it. But on another level, a correct answer to the question, “Who killed King Duncan?” “William Shakespeare:” he wrote the play, he created all the characters in it, and he wrote the part where Macbeth killed King Duncan.

    What do you think? Good analogy or bad analogy? Remeber we are being civil now. Right?

    Mar 15th, 2010

22. george bryson

    Hey Gentlemen (or ladies)

    I like the straightfoward, non-sense, no punches pulled reasoning of R.C. Sproul Jr. Anyone share my views? When it comes to the introduction of sin in the world he seems to be in agreement with Cheung, You would probably know better that I do. What do you think about what he says in Almighty over All?:

    God wills all things that come to pass. … God desired for man to fall into
    sin. … God created sin.

    Sproul Jr. explains that we only have four options:
    Adam, Eve, Satan, [or] God…

    He then says:

    The difficult question is how men came to be sinners in the first place. Remember that once there was God and nothing else. Now there is not only God and the universe but also evil. Where did it come from?

    Sproul Jr. rules out Adam, Eve, and even Satan because they were created good and as such are supposedly incapable of doing bad on their own. He then says:

    Who are we left with? The case against God, the argument that he must be the one who introduced evil into his world, does not just rest merely on the process of elimination.

    Sproul Jr. goes on to say:

    We know that God was present…he is always present…Did God have the means? Of course he did. There is no power greater than him that could somehow stop him from changing Eve’s inclination [from good to evil]. We know that it is not only possible for God to change a person’s inclination; we know in fact that it is his habit to do so. He does it all the time…But even if God works through secondary causes-hires someone else to do his work for him-he cannot cease to be the primary cause. In a human trial we recognize that hiring a hit man does not shift the blame from the hirer to the hiree. Both the triggerman and whoever ordered the hit stand trial for the crime. And both can hang for it.

    The same could apply to Adam and Eve and the fall. God might not have operated on Eve personally. He might not have flipped the switch, changing her inclinations from good to evil. He must, however, have been the ultimate cause. He could have set things up in advance, arranged all the possibilities such that it would happen. But as the sole creator and controller of those possibilities, the trail ultimately leads back to God.”

    Is Sproul Jr. right? I do not think Sproul Sr. would agree, but I could be wrong. What do you think? Still civil!

    Mar 15th, 2010

23. george bryson

    There is an advantage of being 11 time zones away. I am sending you a few “howdy” notes while you sleep. Time to wake up and enjoy this wonderful day that God has made. Let us, Calvinist and non-Calvinist alike, rejoice and be glad in it. Now back to work, George

    A. A. Hodge, an Infralapsarian, admits that:

    … All the world knows that as a predestinarian [Calvin] went to the length of Supralapsarianism*, from which… the Synod of Dort, and the Assembly of Westminster, recoiled.

    John Piper says:

    …I conclude with Jonathan Edwards, ‘God decrees all things, even all sins.

    Edwin Palmer says:

    This is the awesome biblical asymmetry. God ordains sin and man is to blame.

    Calvin complained about his detractors because:

    They deny that it is ever said in distinct terms, God decreed that Adam should perish by his revolt. As if the same God, who is declared in Scripture to do whatsoever he pleases, could have made the noblest of his creatures without any special purpose. They say that, in accordance with free-will, he was to be the architect of his own fortune, that God had decreed nothing but to treat him according to his desert. If this frigid fiction is received, where will be the omnipotence of God, by which, according to his secret counsel on which every thing depends, he rules over all? But whether they will allow it or not, predestination is manifest in Adam’s posterity. It was not owing to nature that they all lost salvation by the fault of one parent. Why should they refuse to admit with regard to one man that which against their will they admit with regard to the whole human race? Why should they in caviling lose their labor? Scripture proclaims that all were, in the person of one, made liable to eternal death. As this cannot be ascribed to nature, it is plain that it is owing to the wonderful counsel of God.

    Comforting thought to start the day with, unless you are “born doomed from womb”? But who cares about those reprobates? Certainly not God. Right? You really got to love that asymmetry.

    Mar 15th, 2010

24. Mario Herrera

    When we examine ourselves, we should be able to say as Job did,

    “”Then Job answered the LORD: 2″I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted. 3 ‘Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?’ Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know. 4 ‘Hear, and I will speak; I will question you, and you declare to me.’ 5 I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees you; 6 therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes.” Job 42:1-6

    Mar 15th, 2010

25. John

    George: So youve read all Calvins commentaries? So you like Grudem?
    So you read reformed theologians of all kinds?

    But in the end youve done nothing more with it than come here to mock?

    These reformed brothers are grappling with hard issues, theyre confronting things that many will not confront.

    For you George this issue is what are you going to do with what youve read and heard? I realize that you are a celebrity of sorts and that even though you are heavily criticized by the reformed camp, you have alot of favor with other camps.

    Here’s something for you to consider, when the non-calvinist comes to a Church and he begins to expound his Arminian views, does he draw away
    many many people after him and the Church begins to split?
    Or is it when a Calvinist comes to an Arminian based Church and his views are heard fairly and openly, what happens? You got it, many will begin to reconsider thier previous teachings and compare them with scripture.

    George, they begin to see that God’s sovereignty is not friendly to the carnal minds of sinners or the assumptions of newly formed converts.
    They find out that the bible has more to say about God and his mind than the Arminian has been letting on. So, you tell me George, if Calvinism is so unscriptural how is it that Calvary chapelites all over not only appreciate the reformers but when shown what reformation theology is, they become reformed?
    In the Calvary Essentials, Chuck Smith bailed on God’s sovereignty and tossed the issue to the side, deciding to push that issue under the rug and then blame the Calvies for urging that Christians should approach the subjects and study them.
    George, the body of Christ is bound to know God, not simply the doctrines that Chuck wants to share, but all the doctrines, even though difficult and sometimes hard to receive.

    You dont believe Calvin or the reformers, you dont agree with Grudem and you dont believe us either. But youve not removed the splinter from your own eye either. It remains there, so much so that youre searching high and low to be delivered of it. That splinter is God’s sovereignty contained in Election.

    Now that time has passed and Chuck Smith has chosen which camp he will defend, he chose Arminian semi-pelagianism. Ok, thats fine. But just remember that for all the problems you suppose Calvinism has, Chuck- Smithism has them in abundance. Any Christian that has the diligence to question not just the reformers but Smithism will find the scriptures contradict Smithism.

    Secondly, when Christ is preached, Calvin is not, When the gospel is proclaimed Christ is preached Grudem is not. So, when the cross is proclaimed and sins are rebuked, when Christ’s blood is declared sufficient and good works and law keeping are put down where should we inject Calvin or Grudem or Luther? Are you saying that to be faithful to the reformed faith I must inject the words of uninspired teachers?

    Maybe thats where we differ George, maybe Smithism is more apt to inject Chuck or John Courson or even you into the message.
    Charles Spurgeon preached Christ, so preach Christ, Ive never said anything else on this board or any other.

    Lastly George when it comes to sin there is no place other than God to put the issue. Where else do you want to put it?

    Adam and Eve chatting it up with the serpent, God knew that untold disaster of such a monumental scale was going to occur, yet God didnt say, “hey Adam hold on there”…”Wait Eve, before you take that bite”
    Nope, he just let the only two humans on earth go forward, and by doing so reveal something about God that is a hard pill to swallow. God just at least permitted sin to enter the world, or at best just accomplished it by setting a forbidden tree, two naive humans and a devil in the same spot.

    What else can you make of it George? Calvinist or Arminian…that dont change the facts, it doesnt change the outcome.
    Someone is going to ask the hard questions George and theyre not going to just sing kum by ya at the beach. Their Christianity is deeper than
    “Well, man sinned and we did it.” Original sin enters the equation, Election, chosing and predestination enters the equation, experience and example enter the equation. What are you going to tell your congregation George? That God didnt chose, he’s just a victim of the devil too? He got the raw deal when the devil pulled one over on Adam. So why if the devil got what he wanted with Adam, did all of Adams prodigy become infected with sin too? Its not recorded that such a thing is of the devil, but in fact points to God? Just like Calvin said…original sin is not a natural material defect in man its a God-ordered deficiency.

    No easy answers, no quoting John 3:16 and all is well.
    I submit to you George that youre not helping the body of Christ to grow up. Youre keeping them immature in their thinking and in their spiritual grasp of God. Its easy to keep the congregations at bay spiritually when they are just given a little taste of spiritual gifts, and a little tiny spec of Sovereignty or just the tiniest bit of election…because the bible has that word in it. But when youve opened up the congregation to a whole world of God-minded Sovereignty and power, questions pop like pop corn and now the anti-intellectual, the dumb down quasi-spiritual teachings wont feed them any more. Its not a matter of some divisive teacher trying to draw away converts to himself, no, its the truth of God entering in and that flock hearing the masters voice calling them. They all move forward towards Jesus and they turn away from vain attempts to corral them in with “It aint so cause God is now the author of sin” and such like terms.

    Are you trying to protect them from God?

    Let the flocks feed on good land George, let them drink pure water. Unless you find yourself a celebrity withstanding Christ taking them where he wants.

    John

    Mar 15th, 2010

26. Mario Herrera

    George,

    I am assuming you are in Russia since you say you are 11 time zones away? How are things going with CCCPM?

    Mar 15th, 2010

27. Stephen Macasil

    Hi George!

    I’ll bite. Yes, I agree with Calvin. And why? Because I find his explanation of predestination to be non-contradictory with Scripture.

    Calvin wrote: “With regard to secret movements, what Solomon says of the heart of a king, that it is turned hither and thither, as God sees meet (Prov. 21:1), certainly applies to the whole human race, and has the same force as if he had said, that whatever we conceive in our minds is directed to its end by the secret inspiration of God.” (Inst. 1.18.2)

    Now, in order for your beliefs to be true, George, Solomon must be wrong, and if Solomon is wrong then the Scriptures cannot be inspired since they wouldn’t be inerrant. So, can you reconcile your doctrine of human free will with the Proverbs passage above?

    Mar 15th, 2010

28. Brad B

    Hi John, have you read WCF Chapter V paragraph IV?

    Here it is: ” The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God so far manifest themselves in His providence, that it extends itself even to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men; and that not by a bare permission, but such as has joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering, and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to His own holy ends; yet so, as the sinfulness thereof proceeds only from the creature, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin.” [not by a bare permission]

    Now George cannot reconcile this, or should I say “will”not, but it’s not clear to me from what you wrote that you’ve understood it[the Adam and Eve comments] Just asking.

    Mar 15th, 2010

29. Mario Herrera

    I was looking through the Calvary Chapel Distinctives, the map book for what Calvary believes and found very possibly why George is confused concerning his doctrine. Here are quotes from what Chuck Smith wrote in the book.

    “It’s easy to fall into legalism. We need to beware of this temptation. Beware of taking the hard stand. I have found, for the most part, that when a person gets heavy into ‘Reformation Theology,’ they usually get heavy into legalism. They want to make sure the ’T’s’ are crossed and the ’I’s’ are dotted just right. ’Reformation Theology’ has some good points, but so does a porcupine. When you embrace it too forcefully, then you’re going to get the points.
    Some people object because they feel that I gloss over certain passages of Scripture, and they’re correct. But glossing over controversial issues is often deliberate because there are
    usually two sides. And I have found that it’s important not to be divisive and not to allow people to become polarized on issues, because the moment they are polarized, there’s division.
    A classic example is the problem in our understanding of the Scriptures that refer to the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man. The Bible actually teaches both, but in our human understanding they’re mutually exclusive. People who become divisive on this issue
    claim that we can’t believe both, because if you carry the sovereignty of God to an extreme, it eliminates the responsibility of man. Likewise, if you carry the responsibilities of man to the extreme, it eliminates the sovereignty of God. This mistake is made when a person takes the doctrine and carries it out to its logical conclusion. Using human logic and carrying divine sovereignty out to its logical conclusion leaves man with no choices. So, how are we to deal with rightly dividing the Word on the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man? We need to believe both of them through faith, because I can’t keep them in balance by my understanding. I don’t understand how they come together. But I do believe them both. I believe that God is sovereign, and I also believe that I’m responsible
    and that God holds me responsible for the choices that I make. I simply trust God that both assertions of Scripture are true.
    There’s a pastor who recently came out with a little pamphlet on Calvinism, and on the front cover, there’s a balance scale with John Calvin on one side and John 3:16 on the other. Which side would you rather stand for? Don’t get polarized. Don’t let the people get polarized. The minute you do, you’ve lost half your congregation because people are split pretty evenly on this issue. So if you take a
    polarized position you’ll lose half of your congregation. Do you really want to lose 50% of your congregation? You know the beautiful thing about being called Calvary Chapel? People don’t know where
    you really stand. Put Baptist in your title, and people know where you are, and half the people will never come because it’s a Baptist church. Put Presbyterian in your name, and they know where you stand, and half the people will never come because they know what
    the Presbyterians believe. Put Nazarene in your name, and immediately they’ve got you pigeon-holed. They know who you are, and they don’t need to go. But Calvary Chapel has a sort of mystique about it. ’What do these people believe?” “I don’t know, but let’s go find out.” And the whole field is ours. You want to fish in as big a pond
    as you can find. When you’re marketing something, you want the largest market appeal possible. So don’t chop up the market and say, “Well, we’re just going to fish in this little market here.” Keep the market broad. Fish in the big pond. Fish where they are biting.

    Note Chuck Smith’s analysis of Reformation theology in the above quote. Also Chuck says, “Some people object because they feel that I gloss over certain passages of Scripture, and they’re correct. But glossing over controversial issues is often deliberate because there are
    usually two sides. And I have found that it’s important not to be divisive and not to allow people to become polarized on issues, because the moment they are polarized, there’s division.”

    Here he mentions he “glosses over certain passages of Scripture. Glossing over controversial issues is often deliberate.”

    In chapter 6 Chuck writes, “Now, how is it possible for a person to claim to have declared, ’the whole counsel of God?” The only way a person could make that claim to his congregation would be if he taught
    through the whole Word of God with them, from Genesis to Revelation. Once you’ve taken your congregation through the Bible, then you can say to them, “I have not shunned to declare unto you the whole counsel of God.” This can’t be done with topical sermons. Topical sermons are good, and they have their place, but when you’re preaching topically, you’re prone by nature to preach only those
    topics that you like. And there are topics in the Bible that aren’t very inspiring. They don’t excite the people, but they are necessary issues that have to be dealt with. The human tendency, however, is to avoid these. I f you’re only preaching topically, you may also tend
    to avoid controversial or difficult topics, and the people won’t gain a well-balanced view of God’s truth. So the value of going straight through the Bible is that you can say, “I have not shunned to declare to you all the counsel of God.” Now, I believe that I can say to the people at Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa, “I have declared unto you the whole counsel of God,” because we have taken them from Genesis to
    Revelation seven times. We’re currently beginning the eighth round. We don’t skip anything. And that’s why in the majority of the Calvary Chapels, and the most successful ones, you’ll find the systematic teaching of the entire Word of God, going through the Bible from cover to cover.”

    Chuck also says, “Another advantage of teaching the whole counsel of God is that when you come to difficult issues that deal with problems in an individual’s life or within the Church body, you can address them straightforwardly. We need not worry about people thinking, “Oh, he’s aiming at me today.” People in the congregation know that it’s simply the passage of Scripture being studied that day. So it can’t be, “Oh man, he’s really picking on me,” because they realize that you’re going straight through the Book, and you’re not jumping from topic to topic. We’re just going straight through the entire Word of God.”

    In chapter 6, Chuck writes that he deals straightway with the difficult topics.

    Mar 15th, 2010

30. Mario Herrera

    Note in chapter 11 what chuck says about the perseverance of the saints:

    “We believe in the security of the believer but we also believe in the ’perseverance of the saints.’ We don’t believe that because you are a saint you will necessarily persevere, but that you need to persevere because you’re a saint.”

    Clearly this is not what Scripture teaches. Here God’s sovereignty over the believer is denied and emphasis is put on the individual’s will to persevere.

    Here is another quote from Chuck Smith in chapter 11, “So we seek to take a balanced position rather than getting on one side and pressing the ’Five Points of Calvinism.’ When you take hard
    stands on these non-foundational issues, you’ll just empty your church of all of those who have Methodist, Nazarene, and other Arminian-infiuenced backgrounds. Why would you want to do that?”

    Another quote from chapter 11, “and so we don’t take the
    hard-line Calvinistic position of limited atonement that says Jesus didn’t die for everybody, only those who would believe in Him. We do not accept that believing in Him has nothing to do with human responsibility, but is totally the sovereign choice of God.”

    Note how Chuck disagrees with limited atonement that says Jesus didn’t die for everybody, only those who would believe in him.”

    Indeed however, John 3:16 says “whosoever believes.” The passage further states in verse 18, “he who believes is not condemned, he does not believe is condemned already.”

    In my opinion, clearly there is a twisted, misunderstood view of what Scripture teaches.

    Mar 15th, 2010

31. Mario Herrera

    Just a few more quotes, “I, like every other student in Bible college, wrestled with this issue. I was reading Arthur W. Pink’s The Sovereignty of God. I got so confused because Pink states that man has no choice in the issue of salvation. It is all up to God. There’s no human responsibility. As I was reading the book, I got so confused that I finally stood up, took the paperback, and threw it across the room. I felt like Martin Luther throwing an ink well at the devil. I said, “God, I can’t understand it.” I was frustrated mentally. It was then that the Lord spoke to my heart and said, “I didn’t ask you to understand it, I only asked you to believe My Word.”

    The believer must understand God’s word. How can one believe in something that is not understood? Paul continually prays that believers grow in the grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ.

    In Pink’s book, specifically the chapter Chuck Smith quotes from, there is no place where Pink denies human responsibility, but focuses on Christ as King, he demonstrates from Scripture the wonderful acts of the Triune God in salvation.

    “I believe it’s valuable to use good commentaries to help in understanding the meaning of a passage. I appreciate the insights God has given to other men on passages of the Word. But in saying that I appreciate and do read commentaries, I must also confess that often I will read pages and pages from commentaries and get absolutely nothing that I can use. Sometimes when you
    read seven commentaries on a particular passage, you’re more confused when you’re through than when you started, because there are so many different concepts or ideas on a particular passage. So I believe that one of the best commentaries on the Bible is the Bible
    itself.” Chapter 6

    These are just a few quotes from the book titled Calvary Chapel Distinctives: The Foundational Principles of the Calvary Chapel Movement.

    When George Bryson answers questions, this is where his foundation comes from. May the Lord continue to use these writings and draw more and more believers to ask those difficult questions knowing there are answers that are biblical and not contradictory.

    Mar 15th, 2010

32. Mario Herrera

    George, just about time to get up for you! Left some messages for you to read this beautiful evening here in California, and wonderful morning were you are. Have a blessed day!

    Mar 15th, 2010

33. Stephen Macasil

    Although George makes a respectable effort to disprove that he misunderstands Calvin, a quick peek into Chapter Two of his book seems to hint otherwise. George wrote:

    “It must be stressed that Calvin actually believed that those who are eternally damned were created to be saved.”

    I would like to hear more on how George drew this conclusion from Calvin. It seems pretty clear that Calvin taught the opposite of what George said “must be stressed.” Any response, George?

    In the previous section George attributes election and reprobation to the pagan concept of good and bad fortune (i.e., luck), yet Calvin attributed them to the eternal decree of God,

    “by which He determined with Himself whatever He wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of those ends, we say that he has been predestined to life or death.” Calvin, cited in Bryson

    George makes the statement, “For those tempted to think that I am misrepresenting Calvinism a few words from John Calvin should demonstrate that such is not the case.” This claim flies on the heels of an outrageous claim where George stated:

    “Calvinistically speaking, if it is your good fortune to be among the elect you will be saved for all eternity because you were in effect (and unconditionally) saved from all eternity. Even so, if it is your misfortune to be among the unelect you will be damned for all eternity because in effect (and unconditionally) you were damned from all eternity.”

    George is simply wrong. “Calvinistically speaking,” good and bad fortune have no place in the Calvinistic system. Calvinist theologians can be quoted ad nausium to establish that George has well-misrepresented Calvinism.

    It is a mistake to blindly assume George Bryson as a reliable guide in matters concerning Calvin and Calvinism; too many errors and misrepresentations. Let the reader be warned.

    These quotes are from the free online version of George Bryson’s book, “The Five Points of Calvinism Weighed and Found Wanting.” More to come.

    Mar 15th, 2010

34. John

    Hello Brad: yes Ive read the WCF (as you quoted) and I agree with it.
    But I wanted to toss out to George that even at the fall, God’s actions and inactions (what we cannot see) are not so easily answered and that his constant rebutting doesnt take us anywhere.

    You cannot even read Gen 3 and walk away from it safely thinking God had nothing to do with what happened here. Why couldnt that devil be in some tree in Canada instead of Eden? I hope you see what Im saying, I believe the reason that Georges dislike of Election is because its not easy. Its not humanly intuitive for him. It raises to many questions he is not prepared to answer. His answers so far constitute endless rebuttals without offering anything in the form of biblical theology of a systematic that would “correct” our errors. Its all a continual “the calvies are wrong, the calvies are wrong”.

    Take Grudem for example, it seems that George doesnt agree with the
    Shakespear/Macbeth analogy, but again, does George fairly handle Grudem? No, he just quotes him as if Wayne shoots a blunderbust at the subject. Its on pages 321-322 of WG systematic.
    What has George offered instead? Maybe he should have just quoted WG’s Arminian statements and said..”this is what I believe”. But we cant seem to get that either.

    This little rant is a repeat of other posts of mine.

    I dont make God the author of sin, but I dont pretend that God is the hapless victim of putting too many folks in one garden and then it got out of hand.

    Stephens right, George, for all his claims to have read “all” of Calvins commentaries cannot seem to express any single truth the way the author intended it, Caveats and all.

    Mar 15th, 2010

35. John

    Mario: Im sure you know this, but in regards to preaching the whole bible from Genesis to Revelation you can in one sense say you have preached the whole counsel of God.
    But in many other senses you have not.
    One sense is that even though you preach the fall in Gen 3, that doesnt mean youve preached total depravity. Even if youve preached Ephesians 1 doesnt mean youve preached Divine Election. If what Chuck said was true in all senses then Calvary should be well versed in Election, Total depravity and even limited atonement. But we both know that their Arminian assumptions dictate exegesis and the reformed view is never even mentioned all the while they brag about “all the counsel of God” is spoken with a straight face.

    It doesnt bother me as much that Calvary have the Armin bent. What bothers me is that they hold theological positions that determine their exegesis of Scripture while hiding the fact they hold them. Add to this the fact that they want the unlearned CC member to think that what they are being taught is pure-unadulterated-inspired doctrine and anything other than what theyve taught is ‘mans teachings’.

    The gloss over is not only a fabrication, but the reality of their handling the flock strikes me as manipulative and disengenuous.

    Calvary Essentials is in my opinion a telling manifesto of chosing numbers at the cost of truth. CS chose a pragmatic approach to growing the churches. But even after they have established their churches the charade keeps going.

    Mar 15th, 2010

36. Brad B

    Thanks for the response John, I misread your intended thought to George. I agree that the CC movement is disengenuous in the effort to control the flock. In the Sunday School class I attend, we have studied many of the Christian denominations to understand their positions, not afraid to compare to see if it be true. They are not so sure they have gotten it right I guess–not enough to allow free honest exposition. I think it’s like a shepherd allowing a ewe to give birth but never allowing the kid to mature to independence but rather to hold him in a state dependence by withholding the nourishment that is necessary to matue. The Word says that God will hold teachers to a higher accountability, so I will leave that to Him and warn anyone who’ll listen to watch out.

    Somewhere, sometime ago someone wise once said: “For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food.” The fruit of modern evangelicalism shows up in the character of the players–according to pollsters, infidelity, divorce, abortion, etc..are statistically no different from the secular world. I believe it will be a terrible judgement, one that I fear to be near.

    Mar 16th, 2010

Reply to “George Bryson: Weighed and Found Wanting”