George Bryson, the director of Calvary Chapel Church Planting Mission, wrote a book several years back against Calvinism called “The Dark Side of Calvinism”. I thought it was funny, that turning to the back of the book, there is an endorsement quote from Doug Wilson of the work. The quote is as follows:
“George Bryson is a very unusual non-Calvinist…His descriptions are fair and accurate, and he clearly knows his subject.”
I started wondering about what might be missing in the context of the quote, as Doug Wilson himself claims to be a Calvinist.
The original source of Wilson’s comment can be found here: http://credenda.org/issues/10-3meander.php
It turns out that the quote was originally a brief comment by Doug Wilson not about this book (“The Dark Side of Calvinism“), but Bryson’s earlier work, The Five Points of Calvinism: Weighed and Found Wanting. This quote then is not necessarily an endorsement of The Dark Side of Calvinism itself.
Doug Wilson also wrote:
The first portion of the book, the place where he does all this, is very good. The second, where he turns to refutation, falls in another category.
It does not seem fully honest to use a selected quote from Wilson as an endorsement, when Wilson did not think HALF the book was good, and then that being of another book instead of the one that seem to be “endorsed”.
It seems fine for what it is, showing that Bryson understands Calvinism. It doesn’t say that Wilson thinks he is right for rejecting Calvinism. But it is very important for a work critical of a viewpoint to understand the viewpoint it criticizes. The content of an endorsement matters. If it praises a cetain aspect of the work, there is no reason to assume that it endorses all that is in the book. I assume Wilson was chosen becuase he is a Calvinist. That should show that Bryson is fair to Calvinism in his description of it. (Now it’s another matter if Wilson did not say that about that book. But if the quote applies to the book, it seems fine according to my comments above.)
Hey brother,
“Now it’s another matter if Wilson did not say that about that book. But if the quote applies to the book, it seems fine according to my comments above.”
It is indeed in the category of “another matter” since the quote did not speak about or even referred to “The Dark side of Calvinism”.
I hope you see my concern.
You have a blessed weekend
Thank you for your reply brother.
I do see your concern. But your post seemd to suggest the other matters were a problem. I don’t think they are as I explained in my post. But I do agree that the comments not having been spoken of the book that they have been included with looks like a problem. I wonder if Bryson got permission from Wilson to stick them on the new book, or if the new book merely includes the same material for description of Calvinism as the first, so Bryson felt free to use the comment as it would refer to the same exact material (I wouldn’t be comfortable with that myself unless the point were stated with the quote, but I could understand someone thinking it was ok). I obviously don’t know. But perhaps we should be hesitant to assume the worst. It would be good to have further information.
Hey brother,
You raised that it was possible that Bryson might have “felt free to use the comment as it would refer to the same exact material.”
I do agree that Bryson might have “felt free to use the comment as it would refer to the same exact material”, which was why he did it.
To clarify, when I say I didn’t think Bryson was honest, I meant he was not forth right with the greater context of the quote, not that he necessarily lied or assuming anything worst, such as a sinister motive or that he was sinning by having that endorsement.
Like you, I would be rather uneasy to present the quote the way Bryson did, knowing the fuller context of the quote.
Hopefully I have been charitable, generating more light than heat, and for anyone dropping they can know of the fuller context instead of reading ill-will mere opinion against Arminians such as Bryson and yourself in respect of them as persons
While it may mean little to nothing for those who care little for facts, the office of Doug Wilson released a statement to a Reformed web site that protested my use of the quote calling it “selective quoting”. According to a statement from his assistant (which was posted on the site) Wilson thought the quote was perfectly appropriate and used properly.
In Christ, George Bryson
Hey Brother George,
I’m kind of amazed that you would have found our small little blog on Veritas Domain. Is this really George Bryson?
1.) “While it may mean little to nothing for those who care little for facts,”
Question: Who in particular are you referring to when you mention those “who care little for facts”?
2.) “the office of Doug Wilson released a statement to a Reformed web site that protested my use of the quote calling it “selective quoting”.”
Question: Wow, there’s a Reformed web site that protested your citation of Wilson? I would like to know the link.
3.) “the office of Doug Wilson released a statement to a Reformed web site that protested my use of the quote calling it “selective quoting”.”
Question: I was wondering if this might have been a public statement Wilson released? Curious.
4.) “According to a statement from his assistant (which was posted on the site) Wilson thought the quote was perfectly appropriate and used properly.”
Question: I’m also curious as to what Wilson’s statement really were. Did Wilson really stated that he found it appropriate for you to quote his opinion about your one book, “The Five Points of Calvinism: Weighed and Found Wanting”, as the back cover endorsement of another book, ”The Dark Side of Calvinism”?
Even if Wilson will be charitable and your conscience say it’s permissible, I think it is important that the exact context of which book Wilson was referring should have been known in the back cover endorsement you had on for another book.
=)
To quote someone legitimately you do not need to to quote everything they have said. All you need to do is make sure that the quote is accurate and not misleading. And yes, the office of Doug Wilson reported that I legitimately used the quote and did so on a very public Reformed blog.
I was accused of misuing the quote (as is often the case) and called everything but a blashemer for daring to use it the way I did. Eventually one of my accusers called the office of Doug Wilson, told his assistant what I did. The assistant talked to Doug and then responded by saying that it was a valid use of the quote.
Only the person who wrote the assistant of Doug retracted his complaint. The rest effectively stuck to their guns suggesting you can only quote folks that agree with you. The accusation of misusing the quote was not only published on the site in which I found it, but it has been copied and pasted on many different Reformed sites-without the comments from Doug’s assistant. But what should I expect? In Christ, George
Bryson,
5.) “To quote someone legitimately you do not need to to quote everything they have said. All you need to do is make sure that the quote is accurate and not misleading.”
Response: I agree you don’t have to quote everything something said to quote something legitimately. But on the basis of the context of the quote it does not follow your use of it. Did you read my post carefully to note that in the end I stated, that you gave a”selected quote from Wilson as an endorsement, when Wilson did not think HALF the book was good, and then that being of another book instead of the one that seem to be “endorsed””?
6.) “And yes, the office of Doug Wilson reported that I legitimately used the quote and did so on a very public Reformed blog. ”
Response: I got that the first time when you stated this, but this does not answer my question I asked in question #3 of my comment: “I was wondering if this might have been a public statement Wilson released?” Help a brother out here, I’ve also asked in question #2 for the link to this “very public Reformed blog”, since I don’t which “very public Reformed blog” you are talking about. I might not know as many reformed blog as the man who wrote “The Dark Side of Calvinism” does, and even then there must be several “very public” Reformed blogs, whatever “very public” means.
7.) “I was accused of misuing the quote (as is often the case) and called everything but a blashemer for daring to use it the way I did.”
Response: Bryson, if it helps in this discussion, I’m not accusing you as a blasphemer or a “blashemer” because of how you quoted Wilson. But I would like to see proof that someone accuses you of being one.
8.) “Eventually one of my accusers called the office of Doug Wilson, told his assistant what I did. The assistant talked to Doug and then responded by saying that it was a valid use of the quote.”
Response: I know you asserted this in an earlier comment, but this does not answer the question I asked you if (a) this was publicly done and (b) where can I access this?
9.) “Only the person who wrote the assistant of Doug retracted his complaint. The rest effectively stuck to their guns suggesting you can only quote folks that agree with you.”
AND
“The rest effectively stuck to their guns suggesting you can only quote folks that agree with you.”
Response: See response #8; I like to see whether these guys really did suggest you can only quote folks that agree with you, so give me the link.
Furthermore, why are you talking about these anonymous “Calvinists” instead of interacting with the content of my post? Does talking about these Calvinist critters serve as a legitimate interaction of what I said? I am not accusing, but I’m suspicious, are you tying me in with them by guilt of association? That’s a fallacy, which no doubt you would point out to the Calvinist who think you are clown because of some anonymous Calvary Chapel clowns he met. Was it because I recycled what they said, if so, just as Yahweh is your God and mine, I was not aware of any brothers accusing you of the same thing when I wrote my post.
10.) “Only the person who wrote the assistant of Doug retracted his complaint.”
Response: Really? Give me the link so I can read it in person.
11.) “The accusation of misusing the quote was not only published on the site in which I found it, but it has been copied and pasted on many different Reformed sites-without the comments from Doug’s assistant.”
Response: Do you know how amazing you keep on talking about this website but don’t give a link for it?
12.) “But what should I expect?”
Response: I don’t know what you were expecting over at that site or on this site, but I do want you to know that I was expecting you to answer my questions (question #1-4), which included documenting things, if you were going to respond.
Sticking to the point, my question boils down to these two questions: Did Wilson really stated that he found it appropriate for you to quote his opinion about one half (remember, the quote in full, as I cited in the post, he saw your other half as failing its task) of your one book, “The Five Points of Calvinism: Weighed and Found Wanting”, as a legitimate back cover endorsement for a totally different book, ”The Dark Side of Calvinism”? And do you think in full academic honesty in the sight of God, that half an endorsement of one book means a full endoresment of another book?
Concerning the last question, I don’t think so. I wonder if Calvary Chapel Bible College will agree with my conviction on the integrity of professional academic CHRISTIAN published discussions.
centuri0n (F. Turk) 2 years ago
You are missing the point -again- Mr. Bryson. You have misrepresented the intent of the words. You have used them to promote when they were intended to criticize. Doug Wilson does not endorse your book; you have used his quote as an endorsement.
You didn’t cite him in a text listing opinions about the first half of your book: you listed part of his quote — without the punch line — in order to promote your whole book. He does not promote your book; he does not endorse it.
Please deal with that.
From the office of Doug Wilson
Hi Frank,
I did talk with Mr. Bryson on the phone. I assured him, without knowing how he quoted the CA paragraph, that Doug was indeed endorsing the book by mentioning it at all in Credenda.
Of course Doug was not endorsing it in the sense that he thought Mr. Bryson’s book’s conclusions were accurate, only that he described Calvinist theology correctly and well, which is what the quote on Mr. Bryson’s new book says.
Doug is still on vacation, but when I described what I’d told Mr. Bryson, he didn’t disagree with me.
Mr. Bryson,
13.) “centuri0n (F. Turk) 2 years ago”
Question: So you identified an individual. Can I get the link where the quote is from?
14.) “You are missing the point -again- Mr. Bryson. You have misrepresented the intent of the words. You have used them to promote when they were intended to criticize. Doug Wilson does not endorse your book; you have used his quote as an endorsement.”
Response: Is this your own admission? Or is this a quote from Centuri0n? If these are Centuri0n’s words, how about some quotation mark? I wonder if that’s how Calvary Chapel train their pastors to “cite” sources like you are doing?
15.) “You didn’t cite him in a text listing opinions about the first half of your book: you listed part of his quote — without the punch line — in order to promote your whole book. He does not promote your book; he does not endorse it.”
Response: Can you give the link to where you are quoting this Reformed brother at? How many times do I have to ask in this blog for a link for verification before I get it?
16.) “Please deal with that. ”
Response: Is this directed towards me or are you quoting someone saying this to you? For the sake of readibility, I think it would be nice if you have some quotation mark. Unless someone else wrote your book, I know you can properly cite things, I have seen your books filled with quotation marks and footnotes. =)
17.) “From the office of Doug Wilson”
Response: I wasn’t aware there was an “office of Doug Wilson”. But in an era of change and the “office of the President-elect”, I suppose there can be such a thing. How is anyone suppose to believe you without some link for verification?
18.) “Hi Frank,
I did talk with Mr. Bryson on the phone. I assured him, without knowing how he quoted the CA paragraph, that Doug was indeed endorsing the book by mentioning it at all in Credenda.”
Response: Who is this guy from “the office of Doug Wilson”?
19.) ” I assured him, without knowing how he quoted the CA paragraph,”
Response: This is a telling statement: He even said he didn’t know how you quoted the Crenda Agenda paragraph! Whatever he has to say provides no evidence to justify how you employed the quote, becuase he doesn’t know how you employed it!
20.) “Of course Doug was not endorsing it in the sense that he thought Mr. Bryson’s book’s conclusions were accurate, only that he described Calvinist theology correctly and well, which is what the quote on Mr. Bryson’s new book says.”
Response: I can’t believe yet again you are unable to employ people’s quotation accurately. The “book” which this individual from “the office of Doug Wilson” has in mind is your “The Five Points of Calvinism: Weighed and Found Wanting”, so I don’t know why yet again you are taking people’s quote out of context to prove something they did not intend to say. Seeing that it doesn’t address your use of Wilson’s half an endorsement of one book to become a full endoresment of another book, your last comment contributes nothing to justifying what you did with Wilson’s quote.
21.) Brother, tell me if my following description is accurate: Bryson quoted from Wilson an endorsement of HALF of the book “The Five Points of Calvinism: Weighed and Found Wanting”, and he employed it as an endorsement in the back cover of another book called “The Dark Side of Calvinism”? Yes or no?
Finally a good question:
Brother, tell me if my following description is accurate: Bryson quoted from Wilson an endorsement of HALF of the book “The Five Points of Calvinism: Weighed and Found Wanting”, and he employed it as an endorsement in the back cover of another book called “The Dark Side of Calvinism”? Yes or no?
First of all, I never said Wilson endorsed my book. Wilson said he endorsed my book. I did not use what I quoted as an endorsement of my book. I used it to say what it said in the quote. That concept is evidently difficult for some to grasp. Some who agree with me might have used it to suggest that Wilson was endorsing my book, and evidently Wilson agrees with them. But that it is not the point either. Everything that I quoted Wilson saying Wilson said and I used it to say or suggest nothing more. Using the quote the way I did was accurate and honest and the names I have been called for doing so would shock a lot of folks. I am not complaining only making an observation. Those throwing a tantrum over the quote only draw attention to the book-and for that I am thankful. In Christ, George
Mr Bryson,
Can you provide an example of a respectable Christian author that does what you did?
Such as using someone’s endorsement of book A for book B as well.
Hey SlimJim
Just when I thought it might be possible to have an intelligent conversation you come up with all of this. Are you serious or just trying to make Calvinists look silly?
Andy
Did you have a good night sleep? What makes you think I used what Doug Wilson said as an endorsement. I used it to say what it said. Is that so difficult to understand?
Andy-suppose you wrote a book about and critical of Mormonism. Suppose a Mormon prophet or apostle wrote an article that said :
“While I do not agree with the conclusion that Andy comes to, George really knows Mormonism and is fair in his description of Mormonism”.
Would you use say on the back of your book or other books on Mormonism, that such and such a prophet or apostle said:
George really knows Mormonism and is fair in his description of Mormonism”?
What if all the Mormons saw what was said and got upset and started calling you, unethical, stupid, dumb-dumb, ignorant ect? What if the Mormon prophet came to your rescue and said to his fellow Mormons:
“Lighten up-I meant what I said and what Andy said I said”.
Do you get the picture, Andy?
Make that “Andy” and not “George” we do not want to confuse anyone anymore than they are already.
George,
Have you realized you have not been answering my questions for documentation and links?
22.) “First of all, I never said Wilson endorsed my book.”
Response: But you quoted Wilson in the back of your book, “The Dark Side of Calvinism” as an endorsement, remember?
23.) “Wilson said he endorsed my book.”
Question: Where did he say or “said” he “endorsed” your book?
24.) “I did not use what I quoted as an endorsement of my book.”
Question: Look at your book, “The Dark Side of Calvinism”, and turn to the back cover, Wilson’s line, “George Bryson is a very unusual non-Calvinist…His descriptions are fair and accurate, and he clearly knows his subject”, is USED as an endorsement.
25.) “I used it to say what it said in the quote.”
Response: You did not used it as it was intended. Not to mention you chopped off the middle of the sentence that communicated what Wilson thought of half that book, which was not the same book you quoted to endorse another. That was the point of my post here. I have already covered this, his original quote was not talking about “The Dark Side of Calvinism”, he was talking about your earlier work, “The Five Points of Calvinism: Weighed and Found Wanting”.
26.) “That concept is evidently difficult for some to grasp. Some who agree with me might have used it to suggest that Wilson was endorsing my book, and evidently Wilson agrees with them.”
Response: You still have no link to prove Wilson was endorsing your book “The Dark Side of Calvinism”. Since when have a compliment about half a book and a bad opinion of another half of it becomes a full endorsement of another?
27.) ” But that it is not the point either. Everything that I quoted Wilson saying Wilson said and I used it to say or suggest nothing more.”
Response: This sentence does not make sense.
28.) “Using the quote the way I did was accurate and honest”
Response: It is not honest nor accurate when you used Wilson’s half an endorsement of one book to become a full endorsement of another book.
29.) “and the names I have been called for doing so would shock a lot of folks.”
Response: Let’s not play the “martyr” card now. =) That’s a logical fallacy of emotional pity. Earlier you alluded to the fact that you have been called a blasphemer for how you quoted Wilson, and I asked you for proof of this in my question 7, yet you don’t marshal any. Seeing how you are butchering people’s quote, I think I shall suspend my trust in what you are saying, until I read the quote myself.
But let’s grant that people have called you alot of names wrongly. Still, those wrongs does not now make it right for you to use Wilson’s half an endorsement of one book to become a full endoresment of another book. It is a logical fallacy to argue that two wrongs make a right.
30.) “I am not complaining only making an observation. Those throwing a tantrum over the quote only draw attention to the book-and for that I am thankful.”
Response: Where is the link of the elusive Calvinists in the dark who are “throwing a tantrum” over your use of the quote? You accuse the brethren and don’t marshal proof, come over here and complain about them doing a wrong against you instead of doing the Biblical Matt. 18 directive of talking to them in private. Then after you are done with commenting on this blog, you forget about what you done and go about ministering and shepherding.
If the reference of throwing a tantrum over how you cited Wilson refers to this blog and my observation, realize I’m raising a question of how accurately you have “divided” (or deleted) Wilson’s word. If you can’t rightfully use a quote for simple a thing as endorsement, what about the WORD OF GOD? If the Bereans were commended as noble minded because they tested something so important as to what Paul has to say of the Scripture by looking at Scripture themselves, what are we to say about someone checking out the quotation you cited? “Throwing tantrum” or noble minded?
31.) Again, you have not answered the question of whether you think my following description is accurate: Bryson quoted from Wilson an endorsement of HALF of the book “The Five Points of Calvinism: Weighed and Found Wanting”, and he employed it as an endorsement in the back cover of another book called “The Dark Side of Calvinism”? Yes or no?
It is a simple yes or no answer, please avoid going tangent.
32.) “Just when I thought it might be possible to have an intelligent conversation you come up with all of this. Are you serious or just trying to make Calvinists look silly?”
Response: Wait, what am I doing that makes Calvinists look silly? I thought you said I even asked a good question earlier. Or at least that’s what you said at 6:49PM yesterday. I see this last comment wasat 4:16 AM…the question you asked Andy shouldn’t be to him but to YOU, did YOU GET A GOOD NIGHT SLEEP?
Concerning your comment to Andy,
33.) “What makes you think I used what Doug Wilson said as an endorsement.”
Response: Because you put it in the back of your book, “The Dark Side of Calvinism”.
34.) “I used it to say what it said. Is that so difficult to understand?”
Response: See my response #25. I have already covered this, Wilson’s original quote was not talking about “The Dark Side of Calvinism”, he was talking about your earlier work, “The Five Points of Calvinism: Weighed and Found Wanting”. Is that so hard to understand that it’s not talking about the book which it allegedly endorses?
35.) Concerning your illustration, I can think of a more fitting illustration. But before I do that, please answer my questions, especially question 21 and 31.
Thanks
Mr Bryson,
You have yet to give me an example other than using ad hoc against me.
I finally understand how you operate especially with Wilson’s quote. No wonder, you got it all wrong when you interact with other Calvinist.
Again, my question was, “can you provide an example of a respectable Christian author that does what you did? Such as using someone’s endorsement of book A for book B as well.”
i.e Chuck Smith commented on my book (book A) and I used it for book B and book C.
Mr Bryson,
How is it that SlimJim’s comment silly??
You are the person that does the name calling but accuses other Calvinist of doing to you.
You have been condescending and engaging in name calling. Please stop that.
We are all about evangelism and ministering to others. We want to reach the lost for Christ and we are also willing to help you understand issues that you do not understand or need encouragement but if you want to be argumentative than I would ask of you to stop.
Andy,
George seems to have been handling your comments with grace; that he even attended to them on the comment roll of a tiny blog was pleasant on his part. It doesn’t seem as though Bryson was condescending at all. You, however, sound like you want to pick a fight. I’m glad he had the grace to leave first.
I too, am a Calvinist.
And unfortunately, one who is a bit more embarrassed by the way you reflect Calvinism in your online conversation than I am by Bryson’s use of a quote.
He’s your brother in Christ.
Hey Chris,
What are the parts of Andy’s comment that make him sound like he wants to look for a fight? Be specific.
I ask because I want you to be careful when you make an accusation against another brother in Christ.
what do you think about the post main point about Bryson’s use of other people’s quote, do you think it is God-honoring?
Your brother in Christ
SLIM JIM
Dear Mr Slim
Why are some of my posts awaiting moderation months after after the fact. Just curious.
Mr. Bryson,
I am unaware of any of your comments awaiting moderation for this specific post. The last interaction between the two of us on this specific blog entry (the endorsement by Doug Wilson issue) was my comment on August 19, 2009 at 8:58 am (see the above).
As to my post interacting with your response to Perseverance of the Saints, I have not been following up with the exchange there.
Mr. Bryson,
I think I see what you are saying.
I see your comment about James White awaiting approval under my entry post “Apologetics in a totally different way: Psalms 58″ which you wrote on 12/8/10.
You said towards the end, “I hope this is the right place for these comments but comments about me and what I have said seem to be just about anywhere someone wants to place them. So I thought you would not mind a few comments from me. If this is not the right place please feel to relocate them or delete if you would like. In Christ, George.”
Comments about you on Veritas Domain has appeared only on two post, this one and at http://veritasdomain.wordpress.com/2009/06/08/george-bryson%E2%80%99s-calvary-chapel-objection-to-perseverence-of-the-saints-in-light-of-philippians-212-13/ because in both post you were the subject of my critique. From your comment, it seems like your comment was to vindicate yourself in light of the commentators about you? If so, do you still have a copy of the comment, can you re-post it to the link above? I think it would be more appropriate there (although I feel everyone’s comment has pretty much been off tangent from interacting with I specifically wrote in the post and hence in some sense inappropriately off tangent. But maybe I’m a stickler with these things). WordPress doesn’t have any ability for me to move comments to another post. Also I don’t know why it puts some of your comments on moderation and others not. Let me know if it won’t work out.
To be honest, I feel a great sense of uneasiness with this whole recent exchange over the last few days over at the other post, it’s a little too much on the ad hominem side. I also feel very uneasy when pastors are being named and things seems on a great tangent beyond my post which was evaluating your position and statements, not a personal attack on anyone. I genuinely feel that no one was actually interacting with my post in the comment section the entire time. While people are free to comment about whatever they want, they have to be responsible and can do it elsewhere if it’s unrelated. I don’t think I’ve ever mentioned anything about James White nor hold him as something against you,when I come to write on your position back in 2009 and this thing about White gets brought up again and again.
On another note, have you thought about having your own blog seeing that you are quite the avid writer on the internet?
I will be pretty much gone from the internet all day tommorow due to ministry obligation with a lecture on apologetics followed by evangelism for several hours, then drive to my class at Seminary and get stuck on traffic to go teach a Bible study. You have a good night Mr. Bryson.
Mr Bryson,
You strike me as petty old man. Who cares about some post you posted months ago?
Just curious, do you have a wife? Don’t you need to serve her? What about children, shouldn’t you be spending time with them? How about grandchildren, play with them?
What about serving God by doing real evangelism instead of asking stupid questions such as some post you made months ago.
Do you even have a job? Looking at the way you comment on blogs all over the internet, with so much time wasted you must not have a job.
Hey Drew-you have exposed me? You must have done a lot of research. Especilly with regard to “real evangelism”. I should probably leave that to Calvinists since the true Gospel is a Reformed Gospel (i.e., the five points of Calvinism otherwise known as the doctrines of grace) Good job man or boy or man-man boy.
Dear Jim or others who host this site. Unless I am invited to engage on a website like this I never do so unless I am brought into a discussion by someone who says I said something. If I do not respond to what someone says I said it is interpreted that I really did say it etc. As you will also notice by reviewing what I say I do not cuss, call people names or attack anyone personally. I am an issue oriented kind of guy. Sometimes those who engage me have no argument but they want to argue and so they call to call me names. I can live with it. God Bless and have a great day. Occasionally I will make a little comment about someone like James White but only in light of a hundreds or comments he has made about me and then circulated or had his friends circulate. I do not mind because he is my best book selling agent. I never give him money for promoting my books but I do thank him often. In Christ, George
P.S. for those who do not think a non-Calvinist should be on a open forum dominated by
the Reformed, they should not mention us by name or have an open format. And Drew I hope you got over whatever was troubling you. We prayed for you.
Mr. Bryson,
1.) “Unless I am invited to engage on a website like this I never do so unless I am brought into a discussion by someone who says I said something. If I do not respond to what someone says I said it is interpreted that I really did say it etc.”
Response: I don’t see anyone saying something about you recently that you have not responded to, the last part was on December 9, 2010, nor was that particular individual comments that you were response to said anything that specifically was about you saying something so I am rather at a loss of confusion, perhaps you have mistakenly commented here on our blog.
2.) “As you will also notice by reviewing what I say I do not cuss, call people names or attack anyone personally.”
I think readers can decide by looking at the above if there are any personal attacks.
Anyways, I think I’m kind of befuddled by your pattern of coming back every few months or so, and leaving comments that was tangent of the actual post entry’s topic (in this particular one, it’s about whether or not Doug Wilson has endorsed ‘Darkside of Calvinism.”) I believe I have encouraged you to make your own website or blog and talk about what you want to talk about there rather than come back every few months to say something about somebody and what they said and how they argue, etc., that does pertain to my entry on veritas domain. To discourage your habit of posting comments about somebody else and what they wrote (instead the immediate subject of my post), I’ve removed the first comment you left about Cheung. Again, if you wonder why White is not a Cheungian, or whether or not Cheung’s theology is a contradiction, why not start a blog and write about it there, brother Bryson?
Seriously SLIMJIM…you carried on a two-year old conversation with an imposter of a George Bryson?
Hey brother,
I like how your email says “notmyrealemail”
I just wonder how you know it’s not really Mr. Bryson. Maybe the joke was on me, but if I could give a Calvinist joke to let you know I’m a Calvinist alright, I say it must be something about the perseverance of the saints on veritas domain…