GEORGE BRYSON’S (CALVARY CHAPEL) OBJECTION TO PERSEVERENCE OF THE SAINTS IN LIGHT OF PHILIPPIANS 2:12-13
Who is George Bryson and what does it matter what he teaches?
Sometimes researching theological disagreement can further clarify and further strengthen one’s position, as one is pressed to scrutinize the Biblical case more accurately and precisely. From the quarters of Calvary Chapel churches, one of their leading figures attempting to refute the doctrines of Sovereign Grace[1] has been George Bryson, who is also the director of Calvary Chapel Church Planting Mission. He has debated James White on this issue in print and open debate, and has also authored two books on this subject, The Five Points of Calvinism- Weighed and Found Wanting, and his latest, The Dark Side of Calvinism. The endorsement that Bryson receive from Calvary Chapel comes from as high up as even the founder and father figure of the Calvary Chapel movement, Chuck Smith, who wrote the forward to The Dark Side of Calvinism. Since doctrines in theology are interdependent, the position one adopts concerning salvation will have an impact on other doctrines, such as perseverance of the saints and sanctification. Practically what is at stake is the ground for the believer’s assurance of their salvation and the basis of sanctification. In attempting to refute Sovereign Grace, Bryson’s teaching will have implication in these areas.
SCOPE OF THE PAPER
The scope of this paper will narrow its focus to Bryson’s objection to a Reformed understanding of perseverance of the saints, as he articulated in his most recent full length work, The Dark Side of Calvinism. The first step in this paper will be correcting Bryson’s misunderstanding of the Reformed position of the perseverance of the saints. Perseverance of the Saint will then be scrutinized in light of Philippians 2:12-13.
MISUNDERSTANDING OF PERSEVERENCE OF THE SAINTS CORRECTED
Bryson’s view concerning perseverance of the saints is colored by his rejection of irresistible grace. For Bryson, there is no such thing as the irresistible grace of God, since grace can always be resisted and rejected by sinners. Yet interestingly enough, Bryson who wrote a chapter titled “Perseverance of the Saints Scripturally Refuted”, has himself stated that he does believe in the perseverance of the saints, although it is not the Reformed understanding of the perseverance of the saints! In this particular area, Bryson’s view does not necessarily represent all of Calvary Chapel, where many hold to the position hat one can lose their salvation. Bryson goes on to say that unlike the Reformed perseverance of the saints, his view does not confuses sanctification with justification (Bryson, 263). Unlike salvation, perseverance of the saints is not a “forgone conclusion” in which believers will always continue to walk in Christ (Bryson, 273). While Bryson states that he believe in the perseverance of the saints (but not the Reformed articulation of it), an assessment of his position reveal that it is best to call his position “once saved, always saved”, to distinguish it from the doctrine of perseverance of the saints. In other words, Bryson believes that a believer’s justification in Christ is secured for eternity, although a believer might possibly not experience sanctification for most of the believer’s Christian life (Bryson, 263-266). He even found it appalling that some Christians would reject the idea of the ‘carnal’ Christian (Bryson, 266). Here is a good case which demonstrates how doctrines in theology are interdependent, for Bryson’s major contention with the perseverance of the saints is ultimately with the Reformed understanding of the sanctification of the saints.
The gist of Bryson’s objection in The Dark Side of Calvinism is stated compactly with this question: “At the risk of belaboring the point, however, if all true saints persevere through to the end, why does Scripture so often encourage the saints to persevere and just as often warn them of the consequences of not persevering” (Bryson, 269)? Bryson cites various passages from Scripture, where there are warnings and exhortation to be sanctified. He believes that these warnings would then be totally meaningless and unnecessary if the Calvinist position on perseverance is correct (Bryson, 281).
The root of the problem to Bryson’s objection is a misunderstanding of God’s sovereignty in sanctification. While Bryson has correctly cited contemporary Reformed teacher such as Sproul and MacArthur to demonstrate the Reformed position holds to the believer’s inevitable sanctification as the result of God, Bryson has failed to provide any citation of adherents of Sovereign Grace concerning their position on the means in which God sovereignly sanctifies the believer. God in His sovereignty sanctifies the believer through the means of warning believers from the Scripture itself. A believer ought to test to see if they are in the faith, and admonition from the Scripture is legitimately the means in which God has decided to keep those who are elect, in the faith (MacArthur, 212-215). There is an element of human responsibility in sanctification, according to the doctrines of Sovereign Grace, and warning from Scripture appealing to the believer’s responsibility is how God intends to sovereignly preserve the saints.
Sadly, Bryson has not only misunderstood the Reformed position of the perseverance of the saints, Bryson should have known better, if he has read the context of some of his citation carefully. For instance, according to Bryson, Sproul admittedly concede the problem that Sovereign Grace would make warnings totally meaningless and unnecessary. He quotes Sproul saying “It seems frivolous to exhort people to avoid the impossible” (Bryson, 281). A more complete reading of Sproul would indicate that Sproul does not admit a problem and left it at that. In the very next sentence Sproul addresses the issue further, saying that perseverance is both God’s grace and a believer’s duty (Sproul, 186). In the larger context that Bryson lifted his quote from, Sproul went on explaining how humanly speaking it is possible for a believer to fall away but ultimately why that will not happen is because God is the who is preserving a believer from falling away (Sproul, 186). Scriptural warning and admonition is the human side to the perseverance of the saints. This is the Reformed position which Bryson failed to accurately understand or represent. The next part of this paper will see if the Reformed position is also the Biblical position.
PHILIPPIANS 2:12-13
Philippians 2:12-13 is important in the discussion of perseverance of the saints in light of the paradoxical tension of the believer’s responsibility and divine sovereignty in salvation expressed in these two verses (Silva, 118).
Contextually, Philippians 2:12-13 begins a section of exhortation, which goes up to verse eighteen (Lightner, 848). In the previous section, Paul has given a hymn concerning the humble attitude in which believers ought to share with Christ. As a result of the truth in the previous section, Paul applies the truth of the hymn by addressing the believer’s response and responsibility in salvation. It is clear that Paul is addressing believers, since he called them brethren.
The topic of salvation is explicitly clear, since the word “salvation” itself is mentioned in verse twelve. Attempts has been made to interpret “salvation” here in non-theological sense, such as seeing salvation a reference to health, but health and well being is not suggested within the verse nor the context. The use of “salvation” elsewhere in the epistle (1:19, 28) is clearly about spiritual salvation (O’Brien, 278-279). Furthermore, in the corpus of Paul’s epistles, there is no evidence where “salvation” is used in a non-theological sense for health (Silva, 119-120). Salvation must be understood as all of God’s work on behalf of the believer, from election to glorification (MacArthur, 211; cf. Silva, 121). Salvation understood as such, is attested by Scripture where salvation is seen as what has already been done (Ephesians 2:5, 
and what is still yet to come (Romans 5:9-10, 2nd Timothy 4:18).
In this discussion about salvation, Paul talks about obedience, which is in the realm of human responsibility. The Philippians’ readers are described as always obeying, or for interpretation purposes, as obeying previously, and the Greek aorist tense for “obeying” is looking back to the old days (Moule, 44). Paul exhort his readers, now that he was no longer with them (“now much more in my absence”) to continue having that same obedience which Paul has witnessed previously.
Paul commanded the Philippians to show their obedience by working out their salvation. “Work out” (kataergazesthe) is the main verb of verse twelve (O’ Brien, 281). While later in verse thirteen Paul would talk about God’s role in salvation, commentator Silva correctly observes that Paul’s first concern was with human activity (Silvia, 122).
Paul even described further details in verse twelve of how the believer was to work out their salvation. Connecting to the main verb “kataergazesthe”, is the modifying phrase “with fear and trembling” (O’ Brien, 282). This phrase carries more of the thought of reverent and full conscience of God’s presence rather than the idea of tormenting misgiving attitude (Moule, 44). If readers read this verse in isolation from verse thirteen or if readers presupposes that a believer can work out their own salvation without the need of grace from God (as verse thirteen teaches), then the phase “with fear and trembling” is virtually unintelligible. Fear and trembling is the proper response, because salvation has everything to do with God, and something done by God, as verse thirteen teaches. While there is a human factor, there is also the factor of God in salvation.
Turning to verse thirteen, the presence of the Greek word “gar”, which is translated in English as “for”, should be understood as “because”. This word is introducing the ground and the reason of why there should be fear and trembling (O’ Brien, 284). There should be a reverential fear because God is the one working in the Philippians. In the Greek, there is a particular emphasis in this verse on God (“Theos”), since “Theos” is placed first in this verse (O’ Brien, 286). The presence of “gar” also demonstrates a causal relationship of God to a believer’s working out their salvation (Silva, 122).
There are two things described in verse thirteen of how God works in the lives of believers. First, God is the one who works in the believer to will. The Greek verb “to will” is “thelein”, which carries the idea of purposeful determination and the fact that it is in the Greek present tense means this will is an ongoing process (O’ Brien, 287). God is the source of the believer’s continuous desire to work out their salvation. Secondly, God’s work is also behind the believer’s actual work for God’s pleasure. It is a great awesome truth, one that believers should laud thanksgiving and joy to the Lord, that God is behind one’s desire for working out our salvation and actual sanctification. A believer should be in fear and awe of this great truth.
If God is the source of the believer’s determination and actual work which pleases God, and this is what He does as part of God’s sanctification in salvation, then it follows that godliness is inevitable for a true believer. Bryson finds this idea abhorring, and teaching this will have contrary effect (Bryson, 269). This is rather a shallow understanding of Scripture, especially when the epistles openly juxtapose the indicatives of God and the imperatives of God. In fact, O’ Brien stated it well, that “Philippians 2:12-13 gives clear expression to this relationship of the ‘indicative’ and the ‘imperative’, the theological foundation and the accompanying exhortation” (O’ Brien, 285).
In conclusion, Philippians 2:12-13 attest to the teaching that there is human responsibility in salvation, a salvation which is God’s work, in which God himself is the source of the believer’s will and actual result of perseverance and godliness. Yet, with these great truths, Scripture itself issue warnings to believers without a hint that is conflicting with the truths above. Thus, the believer is not only promised that he will be “once saved, always saved”, but also actual perseverance as a true saint of God, because of God’s sovereign grace in his progressively sanctifying life.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bryson, George. The Dark Side of Calvinism: The Calvinist Caste System. Santa Ana, California: Calvary Chapel Publishing, 2004.
Bryson, George. “The Divine Sovereignty Human Responsibility Debate Part 2.” Christian Research Journal 24 no. 1 (2001): 22-25, 41-47.
Demarest, Bruce and Gordon Lewis. Integrative Theology. Volume 2. Grand Rapids: Academic Books, 1987.
Erikson, Millard. Christian Theology.. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1998.
Lightner, Robert P. “Philippians.” In The Bible Knowledge Commentary. 2 Volumes, Edited by John Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck, 2:647-666. Colorado Springs: Victor, 1983.
MacArthur, John. The Gospel According to Jesus: What is Authentic Faith? Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008.
Moule, H.C.G. The Epistle of Paul the apostle to the Philippians: With Introduction and Notes. Cambridge, England: University Press, 1936.
O’ Brien, Peter T. The Epistle to the Philippians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. The New International Greek New Testament Commentary. Cambridge, Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1991.
Silva, Moises. Philippians. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2005.
Sproul, R.C. Chosen by God. Wheaton: Tyndale House, 1986.
White, James. “The Divine Sovereignty Human Responsibility Debate Part 1” Christian Research Journal 23 no. 4 (2001): 32-41.
[1] Sovereign Grace refers to the teaching that God’s work for a believer’s salvation began from eternity, when God elected and choose the believers to come to a saving knowledge of himself through faith in Jesus Christ. This term is used interchangeably with Reformed theology and Calvinism for the purpose of this paper.
[A Calvinist] view concerning perseverance of the saints is colored by his [acceptance] of irresistible grace. For [Calvinists], there is no such thing as human responsibility or freedom, since grace can [never] be resisted and rejected by sinners. Or could this be a misrepresentation of your position?
Yet interestingly enough, Calvinist do not believe that human beings actually persevere because they are carried along by an irresisistible force. Man is neither free to persevere or not persevere-He is simply not free to do anything except what the decree dictates. Perseverance of the saints is a misnomer and a careful student of Calvinism will recognize this is the case. It is only called perseverance of the saints as a phenomological appearance of reality-like the sun rising and setting.
The Calvinist version of perseverance of the saints is a “forgone conclusion” in which believers will always continue to walk in Christ-how could they not being under the irrisistible grace of God and the eternal all encompassing degree of God-unless of course-God decreed otherwise-which would be they were not saints but only appeared to be so-and no one will know for sure (according to Calvin and Calvinist) until we endure to the end.
Corrections:
The Calvinist version of perseverance of the saints is a “forgone conclusion” in which believers will always continue to walk in Christ-how could they not being under the irrisistible grace of God and the eternal all encompassing decree of God-unless of course-God decreed otherwise-which would mean they were not saints but only appeared to be so-and no one will know for sure (according to Calvin and Calvinist) until and if they endure to the end. Even then God could be tricking them-see Calvin’s commentary of Hebrews
Name this Calvinist:
“When Reformed Christians are questioned on whether God is the “author of sin,” they are too quick to say, “No, God is not the author of sin.” And then they twist and turn and writhe on the floor, trying to give man some power of “self-determination,” and some kind of freedom that in their minds would render man culpable, and yet still leave God with total sovereignty.
On the other hand, when someone alleges that my view of divine sovereignty makes God the author of sin, my first reaction tends to be, “So what?”…I have never come across a half-decent explanation as to what’s wrong with God being the author of sin in any theological or philosophical work written by anybody from any perspective. The truth is…there is no biblical or rational problem with him being the author of sin….if God directly causes you to sin, it does make him the “author” of sin …Some make a distinction between natural and moral evil, but the Bible says that God causes both…
Hey George,
If possible, can you limit your interaction to the specific topic of this post instead of going tangent about other calvinists?
That’s like me attacking your premillennialism by asking you which premillennial Calvary Chapel pastor made the false prophecy that Christ will return in 1981.
1.) “For [Calvinists], there is no such thing as human responsibility or freedom, since grace can [never] be resisted and rejected by sinners. Or could this be a misrepresentation of your position?”
Response: Did you even read my post? If you read it you would see my position on human responsibility.
2.) “Man is neither free to persevere or not persevere-He is simply not free to do anything except what the decree dictates. Perseverance of the saints is a misnomer and a careful student of Calvinism will recognize this is the case.”
Response: You asserted that “Perseverance of the saints is a misnomer”, when the Calvinist uses that phrase. If it is a misnomer, what then SHOULD “Perseverance of the saints” mean? How are you defining that theological term?
Dear Jim
As you noted, I see a connection between irresistible grace and perseverance of the saints in Calvinism. Sometimes you just have to be able to ride a bike and chew gum at the same time. Rember, leading Calvinists argue that there is only one point and to miss this misses the point. No disrespect intended, but that maybe why you do not seem to “get it”. If you cannot handle this-I will let you continue your monologue.
Dear Jim
As you noted, I see a connection between irresistible grace and perseverance of the saints in Calvinism. Sometimes you just have to be able to ride a bike and chew gum at the same time. Remember, leading Calvinists argue that there is only one point and to miss this misses the the point. No disrespect intended, but maybe that is why you do not seem to “get it”. If you cannot handle this-I will let you continue your monologue.
Dear Jim
As you noted, I see a connection between irresistible grace and perseverance of the saints in Calvinism. Sometimes you just have to be able to ride a bike and chew gum at the same time. Remember, leading Calvinists argue that there is only one point and to miss this, misses the point. No disrespect intended, but maybe that is why you do not seem to “get it”. If you cannot handle this-I will let you continue your monologue.
George,
Curious, do you cut and paste three times because your comment doesn’t show up at first?
3.) “Sometimes you just have to be able to ride a bike and chew gum at the same time.”
Response: This is a false analogy fallacy which fail to justify going off topic from the post.
Seeing you are an older experience man who can ride a bike and chew gum at the same time so to speak, forgive a young buck whom you might precieve to still have training wheels and can’t chew gum at the same time, don’t go tangent about “guess who is this calvinist”, and the like.
4.) “Remember, leading Calvinists argue that there is only one point and to miss this, misses the point. ”
Response: What is this “only one point” are you talking about?
5.) “No disrespect intended, but maybe that is why you do not seem to “get it”.”
Response: What is it exactly that I don’t get? The “only one point” you did not clearly identify?
6.) “If you cannot handle this-I will let you continue your monologue.”
Response: How is it that I am having a monologue when in the course of our interaction thus far, I have asked you questions primarily and you don’t answer them?
Thanks.
Dear Mr Bryson,
Would you please try to answer questions or interact with each point without going off tangent. It is ridiculous to ask which Calvinist said the above quotation, it’s not even part of the post. It is like me asking you which Calvary Chapel pastor said that Jesus is going to return in 1981 or which Calvary Chapel pastor said that the only inspired Bible is the KJV and all other translation is demonic. Or which Calvary Chapel pastor said that all Calvinist are going to hell or which Calvary Chapel pastor said that when he preaches Romans he believers in eternal security but when teaching Hebrews no eternal security.
I hope you are not doing a driving-by-post. We are here to interact point by point with you. Offer you respect and treat you like a brother in the Lord. We also believe non-Calvinist who repent of their sin and trust in the Lord Jesus are believers.
Please do not copy and paste any chapters from your book to interact with us. Doing that is like me copy and paste each chapter of RC Sproul’s book every time you comment.
Let’s get to the main discussion since we have already cleared the unnecessary discussion.
1. Please interact with the exposition of Philippians 2:12-13 or any theological issues of this current post.
2. Would you mind clarifying your argument again on RC Sproul’s “Chosen By God” on page 186 with the entire context intact and not just a verse from his paragraph.
Thank you sir.
Dear Gentlemen
Someone is playing with your sight and and posting things in my name. As an example you have this post that refers to something I could have said in July repeated several times but certainly did not say recently or three times in a row in the context of this conversation. It is however, interesting to me that no matter what you and your colleagues say on the sight (as long as you agree with each other) it is relevant and target. If you do not want to answer a very pertinent question- one that your colleagues may have introduced, it is not considered relevant. Oh well, if you prefer not to have this conversation-I will move on before the name calling begins. Besides, as I am repeatedly reminded on web sites of a Reformed bent, just being a Calvinist makes one so much smarter than most of the rest of us. I must admit, this site does not seemed to be engaging in a lot of the childish name calling but I will move on before it does. In Christ, George
Dear Mr. Bryson,
You said, “Someone is playing with your sight and and posting things in my name. As an example you have this post that refers to something I could have said in July repeated several times but certainly did not say recently or three times in a row in the context of this conversation.”
Response,
I just checked all the comments under your name and they all have the same IP address. The July comments have the same IP address as your recent comment. And if someone did use your name, how come you did not refute what the “person” said?
This is serious, you are claiming someone commented under your name and yet all the comments have the same IP address. Can you explain?
Dear Mr Bryson,
You said, “It is however, interesting to me that no matter what you and your colleagues say on the sight (as long as you agree with each other) it is relevant and target. If you do not want to answer a very pertinent question- one that your colleagues may have introduced, it is not considered relevant. Oh well, if you prefer not to have this conversation-I will move on before the name calling begins.”
Response,
?????
SlimJim interacted with you sentence by sentence on the other post and now you claim we do not want to answer? This is very strange Mr Bryson.
Move on before name calling? What kind of logic is this? What if I were to say, “you have yet to threaten us but we better not interact with you before you come and murder us.”
George,
While I do subscribe to some points of both camps but not all points of either camp I have found this one thing to be true. That those who subscribe to all points from either camp can really exhibit a certain arrogance that they believe gives them license to be un-Christ like.
I have seen you debate and can’t believe how calm and steady you are with those who I believe have no desire to understand you at all.
I ask myself, why does he even waste his time with these guys? It’s like casting pearls before swine.
Not only are they trying to trip you up with things pertaining to Scripture, they are trying to dissect your words that have nothing to do with Scripture.
They have no desire to understand what you are trying to convey, they just hate you.
With web comments like this and YouTube snipets they will try to distort everything you say whether it pertains to Scripture or not.
I’m glad you have displayed Christ likeness while you have been dealing with those who haven’t. Good witness.
Hey Bill,
Wow, thanks for visiting. Curious, how did you find this blog entry? It seems like it’s been getting a lot of attention, Bill!
1A.) “That those who subscribe to all points from either camp can really exhibit a certain arrogance that they believe gives them license to be un-Christ like.”
Response: Could it be it’s because of their sin rather than what points you accept or do not accept? Let’s not commit the logical fallacy of ad hominem here! You can do better than that. By the way, are you saying we are un-Christ like here?
1B.) “I have seen you debate and can’t believe how calm and steady you are with those who I believe have no desire to understand you at all.”
Question: Who are these people who do not desire to understand Bryson at all? Are you referring to the bloggers here? And how do you know whoever these guys are have no desire to understand him?
1C.) “I ask myself, why does he even waste his time with these guys? It’s like casting pearls before swine.”
Response: Who is the swine, us?
1D.) “Not only are they trying to trip you up with things pertaining to Scripture,”
Response: Where did we trip up Bryson with things of the Scripture? Did you read what this post is about, or are you just cheerleading without reading?
1E.) “they are trying to dissect your words that have nothing to do with Scripture.”
Response: Is it unbiblical to dissect and analyze closely people’s words?
1F.) “They have no desire to understand what you are trying to convey,”
Response: Again, who are these people who do not desire to understand Bryson at all? Are you referring to the bloggers here? And how do you know whoever these guys are have no desire to understand him?
1G.) “With web comments like this”
Response: Have you read our comments? Does it display the characteristics you mentioned of un-Christ likeness? If so, (a) quote us where we have said something un-Christ like, and (b) some Biblical passages that it is in violation of being Christ like. It’s one thing to assert it is so, it’s another to prove it. =)
1H.) “and YouTube snipets”
Response: What Youtube snipets? No one linked or mentioned any Youtube snipets on here? Any ways, what’s the link so I can know what you are talking about, as it doesn’t relate to the post or anything anyone referred to here.
1I.) “they will try to distort everything you say whether it pertains to Scripture or not”
Question: What are you talking about? Brother, you are on dangerous grounds if you are speaking about us falsely. As your fellow brother in Christ, tell me where have we distorted Bryson? Show and document (1) something Bryson said, that (2) we in this blog took as meaning something different than Bryson meant, and (3) prove us what Byson really meant. If we misrepresented Bryson’s words, he didn’t mentioned anything about it, but yet this is what you accuse us. Please consider the spiritual implication if you falsely distort and accuse of something baseless.
1J.) “I’m glad you have displayed Christ likeness”
Response: Is taking people’s word like R.C Sproul out of context, displaying Christ likeness? (I refer you to READ the post). How about implying that we will soon call him names when we didn’t call him names? Is it Christ like of Bryson to accuse his fellow brothers of things they have NOT committed? Is it Christ like to accuse that people are manipulating his comments, when the IP address are his all throughout? Is it being Christ like to have a double standard? Calvinist’s shouldn’t call Bryson names, yet he can call Calvinists names. And what about him calling me silly on another post in this blog? Is this double standard really Christ like? Have we called Bryson silly? Bryson even admitted, “I must admit, this site does not seemed to be engaging in a lot of the childish name calling”. Have we called him childish name? What childish thing have we called him? When he implied I was childish and unable to hand chewing gum and riding bike at the same time, did I hit him back with some childish name?
I doubt you have read the comments thoroughly.
1K.) ” while you have been dealing with those who haven’t.”
Response: Where have we not been Christ like? This is really detracting from the real argument that I presented in this post. This ad hominem and red herring is logically fallacious.
If we have been un-Christlike to him, (a) quote us where we have said something un-Christ like, and (b) some Biblical passages that it is in violation of being Christ like. It’s one thing to assert it is so, it’s another to prove it. Think about what you are accusing your fellow brothers in the faith. Christ will judge every careless words we say.
Moreover, if it is granted that we have been un-Christlike does one have to be treated in a Christ like way to answer someone back? We are all about evangelism and apologetics witnessing to the nonbeliever, if you are ever around the Los Angeles area I would love inviting you to join us as we teach apologetics and evangelize the area, But it strike me as odd that you are implying that you have to be treated in a Christ like manner before you engage with them in theology/gospel/truth.
Actually, I kind of stumbled upon this blog.
I had been looking up stuff on George Bryson and in my research just noticed some trends.
Whenever I debate anything with anybody you can pretty much figure out pretty quickly if people have a sincere desire to truly understand someone or if they are trying to trap them somehow.
Then these emails, blogs & website entries are worthless for having any meaningful discussion. So much is lost in the format that it in itself can create misunderstandings & confusion.
It’s much better to talk face to face.
My post was really directed at George Bryson as I do not have his email address.
The focus of my life is to agree on the essentials of the Christian faith. Even though I do not agree with the points of either camp I highly respect and listen to John Macarthur who I know is a Calvinist.
I believe that there are things in the Bible that are unclear and since we are unique we might see these things differently but on the essentials we will all agree. We can have unity on the essentials but still disagree on the non-essentials. I believe that is a more powerful witness.
However, I also believe that there are people that are so enamored with their position that it opens a door for division. If my position and the attitude about it I carry is causing me to be un-Christ like then it places my position in question, whatever that position is. Bad fruit is bad fruit.
I listen to John MacArthur, I read Spurgeon, I read Wilberforce, and I grow spiritually on the things I agree with them on. However, I simply disagree with them on this non-essential issue and it’s OK.
It’s easy to agree, like, love with people that think exactly like you do on everything, that is effortless.
Try being passionate on something that disagrees with you and show them the same love & respect you have for the person that aggrees with you. That’s a little harder and I believe that’s what the Lord has done here. The heart is the issue.
We can all have unity on the essentials but have charity on the non-essentials without causing division.
However, there will be some that say that this whole Calvinism/Arminism thing is essential for salvation.
My question for those that believe that, what camp was the thief on the cross in?
Hey Bill,
2A.) “Actually, I kind of stumbled upon this blog.”
Response: It is mysterious how providence work, again, welcome.
2B.) “I had been looking up stuff on George Bryson and in my research just noticed some trends.”
Response: Those trends you noticed of how Bryson is treated online, do you believe that is being reproduced here on Veritas Domain, either in Andy’s or my comments, or my blog entries themselves? I’m curious.
2C.) “Whenever I debate anything with anybody you can pretty much figure out pretty quickly if people have a sincere desire to truly understand someone or if they are trying to trap them somehow.
Then these emails, blogs & website entries are worthless for having any meaningful discussion. So much is lost in the format that it in itself can create misunderstandings & confusion.
It’s much better to talk face to face.”
Response: While I am in whole hearted agreement with you that it is better to talk face to face, I do think blogs can achieve some level of meaningful discussion, though not with the same effect as a physical, in person dialogue. I think you agree with me more than you realize, after all, you are communicating with me on our blog and website.
2D.) “My post was really directed at George Bryson as I do not have his email address.”
Response: I just went online and did a search on George Bryson for the first time, and I found his email listed publically here: http://www.calvarychapeltheology.com/resources.html. Still, since you made a comment about “this web comment” (your words), I thought it needs to be addressed because there were accusations made about us, which I think is not warranted.
2E.) “The focus of my life is to agree on the essentials of the Christian faith. Even though I do not agree with the points of either camp I highly respect and listen to John Macarthur who I know is a Calvinist.”
Response: Great. If we ever meet in person, I think you be suprise that those at Veritas Domain have a rich history either affiliated, fellowshipping and serving alongside Calvary Chapel believers. And the starbucks will be on me =).
2F.) “I believe that there are things in the Bible that are unclear and since we are unique we might see these things differently but on the essentials we will all agree. We can have unity on the essentials but still disagree on the non-essentials. I believe that is a more powerful witness.”
Response: I agree about the unity on essentials.
2G.) “If my position and the attitude about it I carry is causing me to be un-Christ like then it places my position in question, whatever that position is. Bad fruit is bad fruit.”
Response: I agree. But I don’t think Andy or I have been un-Christ like. If there is something that you do think is the case, (a) quote us where we have said something un-Christ like, and (b) some Biblical passages that it is in violation of being Christ like.
2H.) “I listen to John MacArthur, I read Spurgeon, I read Wilberforce, and I grow spiritually on the things I agree with them on. However, I simply disagree with them on this non-essential issue and it’s OK.”
Response: I think that is wonderful and shows the hallmark of Christian maturity. By the way, by expressing your disagreement, there is nothing un-Christlike about it. Furthermore, if you were to express WHY you disagree with them that does not make you UNCHRIST-LIKE either. You after all, believe Bryson was Christ like, even though he’s written at least two books arguing against Calvinism right? This is what this post is doing: Expressing why I disagree with Bryson, and doing so is not in of itself ungodly nor unbecoming of a Christian.
2I.) “It’s easy to agree, like, love with people that think exactly like you do on everything, that is effortless.”
Response: Sure.
2J.) “Try being passionate on something that disagrees with you and show them the same love & respect you have for the person that aggrees with you. That’s a little harder and I believe that’s what the Lord has done here. The heart is the issue.”
Response: Was there something unloving or disrespectful done to Bryson here? If so, (a) quote us where we have said something un-Christ like, and (b) some Biblical passages that it is in violation of being Christ like. Or do you that is something you “believe that’s what the Lord has done here”?
2K.) “We can all have unity on the essentials but have charity on the non-essentials without causing division.”
Response: This is not easy, and I think I wrote the article above in a charitable manner by dealing with the issue instead of the person.
2L.) “However, there will be some that say that this whole Calvinism/Arminism thing is essential for salvation.”
Response: There are Calvinists that have said this, there are non-Calvinists who have said this also as well. We here at Veritas Domain do not believe formal Calvinism is essential for salvation, although it is important. We even called George Bryson and you a “brother” in the faith four different times here! I have called another Arminian a brother and also Bryson at the comment for this post here: http://veritasdomain.wordpress.com/2009/06/07/doug-wilson-endorses-brysons-dark-side-of-calvinism/#comment-15700. Somehow I don’t see Bryson addressing any Calvinists as his brother on this blog.
2M.) “My question for those that believe that, what camp was the thief on the cross in?”
Response: He probably believe Jesus died for his sins. I couldn’t resist a little humor here, but he’s probably a Calvinist by now. =)
2N.) “However, I also believe that there are people that are so enamored with their position that it opens a door for division.”
Response: Much of your comment has to do with the Calvinists being dividing, unloving and not Christ like. I’m curious as to whether the title is a little devisive: “The Dark Side of Calvinism”?
Mr Saunders,
First and foremost, if there are sins in our lives, we would want to repent and be more Christ-like. So, please point them out so we can be more Christ-like.
Can you show us the arrogance that you accused us of displaying?
Did you see how Mr Bryson had called us names and was condescending towards us?
You accused us of hating Mr Bryson? That is a serious charge. How do you know that? Can you show us where or how we hate him?
You have said that blogs, emails, etc are not good places for such interaction an should be done face to face and yet you accused us of hating Mr Bryson.
Btw, Mr Saunders, our post on this issue is a mere 5% or less of the entire posting on this blog. How is it that you accused us of making this an essential issue? Our ministry is to serve our Lord in our local church, equipped the saints in our local church and to evangelize the lost.
The very thing I hate about this electronic media format is happening right now.
You have George Bryson trying to explain things to two different individuals that seem to be going in two different directions. Trying to keep up with any three of you is ridiculous.
Then all three of you try parsing words about who said what.
On top of that, since I don’t know anybody’s personalty or styles trying to interpret what you are saying.
Finally, Jim & Andy, you have taken my original statement and turned it towards yourself, like it was only you I was addressing. It’s not about you.
It’s about George Bryson writing these books, defending his position, and trying not to get in the flesh when being confronted with people who have no desire to understand his position.
This forum is like all other blogs, emails, & web comments. A big ball of confusion.
A meaningful face to face with people who sincerely desire to understand each other cannot be replaced by this way of communication whatsoever.
Then mix in the topic that in the end causes strife within the church and it all equals a big waste of time.
I think John MacArthur stated in his excellent message “The Furnace of Fire” speaking on the Doctrine of Hell, that “close to 5300 people die in America every day with most going to Hell.”
I think our time would be better served praying for and reaching out to those 5300 every day than to be posting blogs, splitting meaningless hairs, and debating any of this non-essential stuff. That would be something the enemy would not want us to do.
Outta here!!
Bill,
I’m afraid that it has taken the direction it did where it comes down to people’s motives and character instead of the issue of the post.
3A.) “Finally, Jim & Andy, you have taken my original statement and turned it towards yourself, like it was only you I was addressing. It’s not about you.”
Response: While it is true you originally wrote your first comment addressing Bryson, you DID accuse us of things on our blog. You did write, “With web comments like this and YouTube snipets they will try to distort everything you say”, right? “This web comment” is in reference to our blog, and that we were trying to distort everything Bryson said. I even asked you where did I distort his statement.
3B.) “It’s about George Bryson writing these books, defending his position, and trying not to get in the flesh when being confronted with people who have no desire to understand his position.”
Response: I find it incredible that you think our conduct was not Christ like, and Bryson was, even though he called me silly, and say we were going to name call him even though we didn’t or plan to. I was just pointing out the double standard.
3C.) “Then mix in the topic that in the end causes strife within the church and it all equals a big waste of time.”
Response: This dialogue is not taking place in the Church, Bill. I use to go to a Calvary Chapel young adult meeting where the Pastor would always rail against Calvinism while looking me straight in the eye, partly directed towards me. Yet, I would not cause strife in Calvary Chapel, out of respect for the church, I would smile and be silent. But meet me on our blog “Veritas Domain”, that’s another story Bill.
3D.) “I think John MacArthur stated in his excellent message “The Furnace of Fire” speaking on the Doctrine of Hell, that “close to 5300 people die in America every day with most going to Hell.”
I think our time would be better served praying for and reaching out to those 5300 every day than to be posting blogs, splitting meaningless hairs, and debating any of this non-essential stuff. That would be something the enemy would not want us to do.”
Response: This is a false either/or fallacy. We are not engaging in this discussion to the neglect of evangelism. We do evangelize, and like I said, if you were in the Los Angeles area, I would love it if you spent a day in the life of SLIM JIM.
To use this argument is fallacious, because Christians are called to evangelism and other responsibilities: Work, Study, good parenting, etc. Studying and engaging in theological dialogue is not something you avoid just because you have to evangelize, just as the same way we don’t avoid being Godly husbands and Fathers, or being a good worker at Work just because we have to EVANGELIZE. It’s not either/or, it’s both/and. I’m sure Bryson would correct you on this too.
Moreover, your reasoning reduce your compliment of Bryson to absurdity: He engages so much more in debating Calvinism than I have, after all, he wrote at least two books on this topic, and I wrote only two post on Bryson’s position! Think about the hours spent! If it is really about the hours taken away from evangelism, why is it you commend the other who’s taking more time away from evangelism to engage in theology? And then you commend him with such nice words in his work against the Calvinists. Think about the compliment you lavish on him for engaging the discussion of Calvinism!