As I see it, anyone who proclaims the existence of God/god who has created “out of nothing,” attributes omniscience and likewise proclaims the existence of moral evil MUST admit that God is “responsible” for all evil. For if God had not created, evil would not exist, hence, God is ultimately responsible for evil. The “free will” crowd does not free themselves from this issue by simply asserting free will. A retarded 5 year old can follow such simplicity.

Regarding the issue of fatalism, this system of philosophy does not exclude the free will of man because it is not concerned with “cause and effect.” Fatalism limits itself to “events” being determined in spite of the free will actions of men. IOW, all events will take place regardless of the free actions of men. This is NOT biblical nor Calvinistic.

I submit that it is the free will crowd that are the fatalist. Most of this crowd have no problem proclaiming that Gods ultimate purposes will stand such as the murder of Christ, His return, the setting up of the eternal kingdom, casting of the reprobate into hell and so forth. They assert this all the while claiming the free will of men.

IOW, God will accomplish all His ultimate plans/events despite the free actions of men. This is a text book definition of fatalism. The events WILL happen (fated) regardless of free creatures.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-USBlQEjtE

I was counseling a fellow who was waxing philosophical about repentance in a backdoor attempt to preach at his wife about repentance. So while he included himself in the picture, I pointed out that when both parties have been injured, philosophies about repentance dont heal the wounds but the genuine act of repentance goes along way towards healing. If he knew he needed to repent, do so and let that repentance speak to the issues where he is willing to amend his ways; “dont preach about it, just do it”.

If youve been wrongly injured here then say so, If there are posters that need to repent then say so in a way that speaks directly to the person and the injury. Otherwise lengthy complaint-posts wont give you want you want.

Lastly, George, If I have been other than Christ-like in my handling of you on this website, I do ask openly and sincerely to forgive me. I will not come at you as a personal enemy to me. Its true I felt you were stepping over the line and blasphemed God while you were attempting to heap shame upon my doctrine, I reacted against that hopefully without sinning myself.

I have come here to debate you on the calvy/armin issues, but not to engage in a George-bash session.

John

Suppose I place on a clip from a video on my website that that included the words and only the words:

“Why Stephan Macasil won’t wash his hands anymore”. Suppose the clip was not mine but the website was. Suppose I have no reason to say or believe this except that I wanted to poke a little fun at Stephen. Suppose also that people began to believe that this statement was true-after I read on a Reformed website and people on Reformed websites do not lie. Now suppose Stephens says (on the website) that I do wash my hands please stop saying I don’t”. Now suppose Stephen has a lot of detractors on the site and they seem oblivious as to why this would bother him. If it not true that Stephen no longer washes his hands, the common decency (which I admit is not to common on certain websites) would dictate that these words should not be included on the web site. I would argue that someone is lying about Stephen (knowingly) or they are just ignorant of Stephen almost religious commit to hand washing. Now if the logic of this escapes others (I can use the name Brad B or John or Mario-to point out whatever it is someone my say on a website that they do not do. Maybe the solution is that we all just come up with something we want to say about someone that is not true-and just have some fun with it. What do you think? Is that how you want others to use this site?

Although it is obvious and indeed the case that you aren’t a theologian or philosopher, I would like to ask you to complete a fairly minor task – one that does not require even general theological and/or philosophic skills, per se.

Your task – Provide documentation of how this site:

a) perpetuates the lie that George Bryson refuses to debate James White.

You wrote: “Why do sites like this one continue to perpetuate the lie that George Bryson refuses to debate James White?”

b) refuses to include the cross-examination of James White by George Bryson.

You wrote: “Why do they refuse and are they afraid to include the cross-examination of James White by George Bryson?”

>>From my recollection, this thread includes several re-hashed debates with you where your position has been refuted. By scrolling through this thread one discovers a library of your arguments (repeated) and the record of their refutations (repeated). But what one will not find are the two charges you’ve brought against this site, which I’ve mentioned to you in private – is my site. If memory serves me right (and it does not always, but in this case…), I’ve asked you to provide me with the link to your cross-examination clip – offering to post it here for you (which refutes item *b)* above).

People come here because of the many links posted and shared virally on Facebook describing it as the best of George Bryson flipped up, smacked down, and flushed (perhaps uncharitably), or they find us via search engines simply by typing in your name and any one of several modifiers, or people email the url’s (I see all the data via analytics), etc.

Bottom line, not one of your objections have gone unaddressed, and all that have been addressed have been shown to be either based on logical fallacies, or were simply refuted with quotations from our Scriptures.

You must understand that you have not brought a single argument to the table that would cause for a Calvinist to tremble. Most of the time, and I say this with respect, your posts seem incoherent, or at least very difficult to follow, which is why you get many questions fired back at you seeking clarification.

You must first establish the correct Calvinist position, and do so according to its terms – not your straw man summaries or quotes from folks on the fringes at the perimeter. Then you must establish the Biblical position. Then you must show how it necessarily follows that the Calvinist position contradicts the Biblical position. Watch me do this, but with your position that “God loves everyone”…

The Bible teaches that the one whom God loves receives discipline from Him. The Bible also teaches that not all people receive discipline from Him and that some are illegitimate children and not sons. Since God disciplines all those whom He loves, but not all receive this discipline, it follows that He does not love everyone. George Bryson refuses what the Bible teaches, and teaches the opposite, that God loves everyone. Therefore, George teaches contra-biblical doctrine.

I’d like to see you try and formulate an argument similar to this that clearly establishes the error (as you see it) of Calvinism. Up until now you haven’t done so.

You may do so right after you complete your task as sketched above.

Seriously I must be traveling too much and have missed something.. What debate and what debate are you referring to that it is not up to you to set up? Did I ask you to set up a date for a debate and then forget about it.

When you say:

“Let your repentance not be a philosophical position but an action that proves youve done it.

This is what youre saying to us, so lets see it.”

Parse this for me. Are you just quoting yourself when you were talking to the person that needed to repent about the way he was evidently treating his wife? “let’s see what?”

Its not up to me to set up the debate, thats your business.

As I was counseling someone the other day, I said ” your philosophy on repentance is very good, but your wife doesnt care about your philosophy she cares about how you are going to treat her in the future”.

Let your repentance not be a philosophical position but an action that proves youve done it.

This is what youre saying to us, so lets see it.

John