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, 8) 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: https://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!
Hi Guys,
I am sorry for not addressing the subject of your blog directly, but I do have something of value to add to the conversation—I think!
I know this is a late entry, but I just ran across this blog. I attend Calvary Chapel RSM and have come to see that God is sovereign in everything and recently discovered Calvinism and its 5 points which I am in complete agreement with. I am the only person in the entire church that walks around with “The reformation Study Bible”. I was led to figure this out by doing studies on interpretations of scripture by many Calvary Chapel pastors I listened to over the years-especially Chuck Smith. Each time I found the particular scripture and subject I was led to examine more closely was being distorted for some reason that I did not understand. After a while I began to understand that men in leadership roles were giving so much credit to biblical figures, other than Jesus, because when they did so some of that so-called greatness was implied to them as men that were leaders in their church, thus they could heap the things they earned upon themselves like money and power. I also noticed they spent large amounts of time puffing up the accomplishments of great men in their midst as well giving them credit for being such strong willed wonderful people deserving of lavish lifestyles. Even the CC pastor at a very small church I once attended, less than two hundred people, took several fully paid vacations a year and went on numerous CC corporate retreats a year while most the people in the church couldn’t even afford to go camping when and if they were allowed vacation time. Chuck Smith and his children live like kings compared to the rest of us in Orange County, yet they love to claim they live humble lifestyles.
That is just some of the areas where proper theology and rightly dividing scripture can lead a person and group of people astray.
Bill uses the very same phrases and rhetoric you hear repeated from every CC pulpit and I would guess that he is from that camp. I don’t understand what Bill is seeing or talking about with his accusations against you or his observations about Bryson and his ability to debate. It is as if Bryson himself is writing in the name of Bill.
I recently ran across a website of George Bryson while doing a search to see if CC had any legitimate theologians with doctorates in theology from high level academic seminary universities. After reading some of the things he had to say about Calvinism I suggested he check out the Alpha Omega Ministries site of James White as well as http://www.monergism.com/. I also added to I was trying to ascertain if Cavalry Chapel had any legitimate theologians because the church I attend has a Bible College and I know that Chuck Smith is not a legitimate theologian nor are Brian Brodersen (his son-in-law and heir apparent) or Dave Rolph or any of the people I know of here in Orange County, CA from CC.
This is important to me because I want the best information I can find from the best trained people. I have some secular college education and took a course on researching information and how to distinguish between good and bad sources of information based on a number of factors like degrees that are relevant to the subject at hand, the kinds of schools the degrees came from and their academic standards, and the strength of the argument based on a set of standards found in the philosophy of logic and reason, which are the standards of argumentation and debate in public speaking, as well as the standards within the subject at hand.
Bryson sent me a searing provocative email back in return calling me a hypo-Calvinist ;), and asked if I was a comedian or a high school student along with many other insults. Having grown up on streets of the Bay Area and not pretending to be perfect as many synergists pretend to be, I let him have it. My temper is my greatest battle and I regret my sin when I lose it. My wife got mad at me and she was right, but this guy Bryson acts like a crazy man at times. He provokes people to the point of violence and I invited him to visit me at CCRSM and speak to me the way he did in his email and we would see if he had the nerve to speak to me with such bravado and disrespect in person. Of course he declined and not because it was unchristian like. I put him on my spam list and took my wife’s advice not to return any more of his emails.
I have witnessed his debate with James White online and from a purely academic standpoint; Bryson was made to look foolish and uneducated in the area of Christian theology. With all synergists it always comes down to their personal feelings about what they want scripture to say and the Greek statement ““Βλακεία είναι ανίκητη” has never been more applicable. Because it is so true we can only pray that it is God’s will their hearts are open to His complete truth. It is all His work anyway. John Hendryx once gave me a good bit of wisdom when I attempted to show the youth pastor at CCRSM the light by answering all his objections and questions about Calvinism in way he was no longer able to coherently argue against any one point without going ad hominem. This is what John told me:
“Edward,
Thank you for your thoughts. Human beings are very complex creatures. Antagonism for the gospel of grace alone is seated in the affections, not simply because people lack data or are not smart enough. Men suppress the truth in unrighteousness. They already know the truth in their hearts but do whatever they can to avoid it. As Blaise Pascal said, “The heart has reasons that reason cannot know.” If they don’t believe the Scriptures they certainly won’t believe “science”. Showing them logic and facts are not enough to those whose reason for rejecting Christ alone is in the heart. Having done apologetics for a long time I have learned that 90% of the reason people reject truth is seated in the heart, not the mind. People believe something because they want to believe, not because they have not yet heard the perfect argument which gives absolute scientific conclusions. Human beings are much more complex than that. The Biblical data for grace alone is OVERWHELMING. Man is simply unwilling to submit to the humbling terms of the gospel, apart from grace. But by the grace of God lots of people ARE persuaded to change their mind by reasoning through the Scriptures.
Remember, a person thanks God for salvation because he does not attribute his repenting and believing to his own wisdom, or prudence, or sound judgment, or good sense. Men are naturally proud and even the very humility to believe is a gift of grace. Can men turn their own stony hearts to hearts of flesh? Even the Arminian would never tell God that, while he is grateful for the means and opportunities of grace that He gave him, he realizes that he only has himself to thank for the fact that he responded to His call. The reason he would never pray this way is because he knows deep down that grace alone is true. He simply suppresses this truth. HIs own prayers are inconsistent with his theology.
I like your reasoning Edward, but it isn’t the end of the story as long as sin influences men’s hearts and minds.
John”
I hope John doesn’t mind my sharing this with you because I didn’t ask him ahead of time. I do think it holds much wisdom and deserves to be shared.
Ed
Dear Gentlemen
I have no interest in having a public conversation with the gentlemen who just posted the comments about on your site but he made it public so I thought it best to provide a little context. First of all, I do not know this man and as far as I know I have never met him or heared from him until he wrote me the e-mails (along with my response to him) that I will include here. The truth is that I thought he was just someone trying to have a little fun. When I realized he may really be serious and upset I encouraged him (as you will see) to communicate to others he trusts what he is saying to me. My hope was that he would not only be encouraged to lighten up but that he would be discouraged from coming across as angry and hostile. If I had it to do over again, I would simply leave his e-mails unanswered. I am not angry at him and am not interested in a conversation with him. I hope and pray that God will bless him and give him peace and joy in his life. I am writing here simply because I believe one of you has a chance to reason with him. I have a lot of Calvinist friends and aquaintences and have a lot forums to discuss issues. I am saddened when it becomes personal. In fact, I am working on a proposal that encourages all conversations between Calvinists and non-Calvinists to be respectful. I know many Calvinists agree with me about such matters. In Christ, George
From Ed to George
I ran across your site in a search to find out if there is a single theologian within the CC organization. I live in the O.C. and attend CCRSM, but have been to at least 6 other CC’s around the O.C. including CCCM. I know Chuck Smith is not nor are any of the teachers at the CC Bible Colleges, neither is Dave Rolph or Brian Broderson. I have taken the time to study the two theologies and find your claims to be that of someone that hasn’t either done their homework or doesn’t have the tools necessary to distinguish between good and bad information.
The facts are the brightest and very best by about a million miles, when it comes to theologians and serious theological universities, are all from the monogeristic camp. I myself have proved using logic and modern science that the idea of prevenient grace as another form of works is true and can’t be proved otherwise. I read many of the works by the Reformed theologians and heard many of the silly weak arguments by the synergistic camp (pelegianists semi-pelegiansts, arminians, and the mixturists) and they are laughable scripturally, logically, liguisitically, and every other reasonable way possible yet people like you try and put out propoganda claiming you know what you are talking because you hold a position of pastor at a CC church.
As if that made you an authority on anything in the Bible! Check out Monogerism.com and Alpha Omega Ministries sites and you will learn all your ideas hold no water with regards the Calvinism.Ed Smith
Dear Ed
I am not sure if you are a really good comedian or just out of high school or perhaps someone pretending to be a Calvinist. If you are a Calvinist you seem to be a hypo-Calvinist on the very anemic side of the Reformed faith, confusing Monergism with synergism. If you truly read my book (which it is hard for me to imagine you would understand if you did read it) you would know that I have debated James White. I know the difference between Calvinism Lite (which you seemed to embrace) and the Calvinism of Calvin.
I do not fault you for that because at your age or the age you seemed to be, you have not had the time or opportunity to read a real Calvinist like Vincent Cheung. Regardless, you are entertaining and I hope you have a good thanksgiving week. In Christ, George
Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 2:05 AM
What are you a retard? Why would I have read your book? You are a Chuck Smith following loser aren’t you? I mean, come on now! Making true statements makes someone a comedian or just out of high school? You have a smart mouth. If you debated James White, then you shouldn’t be talking…because you no doubt had your…handed to you on a silver platter just like I just did. Yet, I understand how delusional…like yourself make believe the won the fighter after they got their nose broke, both eyes closed, their jaw broke, and the ambulance carried you off after being knocked out cold by a fighter you never touched.
If you want to try and talk your…in person to me, I would happy happy to check your bravado in person to see what kind of a man you really are and if you have the…to mouth off the way you are. But I am positive you are a moronic gutless wonder that just like to shoot his mouth off from a far off safe place. A theologian from Calvary Chapel: a laughable joke only a simple minded…like yourself would perpetuate. I have read Vincent Chueng and he answered your…about fatalism. You make me laugh! Come visit me at CCRSM and will see how much of a smart…you are then! I’m calling you out boy! I’ll take your fake cowboy hat off your head a dance on it in front of you and you will do nothing about it. I am 50 years old and had a multilevel spinal fusion 6 weeks ago and I will still make you look like a coward in front of everyone. Not that I would hurt you physically of anything like that because that would be against the law, or that I would threaten to hurt you that way. But I would humiliate you and send you crying home to you mamma! Now kiss my…!
Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 5:29 AM
Hey Edward
You wrote me obviously trying to provoke some kind of response. The difference between you and me is that I am not angry, or hostile and I have no interest in carry on a conversation with someone that seems so emotionally over the edge. I am sure that you can find (in cyber land) plenty of angry people to “call out” and exchange insults with if that is your gig. It seems to me like you may have a few friends in the Reformed community and I recommend that you send them the e-mail you sent me and ask them if you are coming across like a tantrum throwing angry young person.
I am truly sorry about whatever troubles you have had but I do not know you and you do not know me and it is clear to me that the ways you communicate you do not know much about civility. I am sure you do not think you have anything you need to prove to me and I am even more certain that there is nothing you can say, as hostile as you seemed to be, that would tempt me to engage you. This is my last response and I would ask you not to write me back, unless it is to say, “I am sorry for being so rude and I apologize.”
It is hard for me to imagine something like that coming from you so I would just like to leave it at this. Life is too short. Admittedly I am more than a decade older than you and even if you think you have time to waste, and I am more guarded with my time. I am engaged with Calvinists (some of them that you may even respect) on a regular basis. But we are not being rude to each other and do not think it is cool to be rude. I pray that God will give you peace in your life. By the way I am not impressed with crude language either. You do not actually believe that using that kind of language is to the glory of God do you? In Christ, George
Finally note-No need for anger or hostility. Let us all just live to please, honor, and glorify God. I think we can agree to agree
Dearest George,
I do apologize George because I have terrible temper that was forged from an acholoic father that beat me when I was young and dealing with gangs on the mean streets of the Bay Area. Pride is an ugly thing! I have been conditioned to respond to hostility with overwhelming force to protect myself. But I know it is not Christian like and a sin. I struggle with it mightily and am not a person that someone should try to provoke. I won’t go into anymore details about our spat because I will take all the responsibilty for what happened and apologize again to God, you, and the world.
On another subject. I do genuinely want to see you debate James White and have the go ahead at Calvary Chapel Rancho Santa Margarita to hold the event anytime you wish. It is 15 minutes from Costa Mesa as you probably already know. Tristan Greth, the Youth Pastor gave me the go ahead to try and make it happen. I have also contacted James White’s foundation and spoke with Colin Smith who is going to pass the info along. He said that James is concentrating on debating Islam these days, but might make and acception if you we will accpet the invitation to debate him.
What do you say? Tristan a Calvary Chapel pastor wants to see it happen and so do you according to FaceBook. I promise I won’t get pissed off at you anymore and sincerely apologize for my clearly unchristian behavior! He is my friend and so is the Bible College Director of Calvary Chapel RSM. I am not a one way person.
Let’s be friends and let our differences slide in the name of unity and love. I told Tristan about my outburst with you so don’t think I tried to hide it. Pray for me and my struggle with my temper.
I do think it is important for the people at Calvary Chapel to hear both sides of the story so people can make up their own minds about what theology they should follow and help promote a better understanding for the sake of our Lord.
How about it?
With Love and God Bless You,
Ed
Ed,
I rejoice that you do apologize and repent.
Keep on growing in the grace of God that saves you, and working in you to sanctify you.
As I grow more in knowledge I realize that knowing grace is a topic we can never be tired of. For myself, it starts with understanding the gospel as a newly converted believer, it has grown with deeper appreciation with grasping Sovereign Grace, it s has sparkled with the privelege and the honor to serve God and His people in a local church, to prepare sermons in the original language and see it’s beauty, and it doesn’t stop there! What is amazing in my meditation life this last year is how the same grace that saves us, is the same grace of God that works in us to sanctify us! And He promise that He will work in us and discipline us to be more like Him.
Although nothing I said was hostile toward you I do accept your apology and as I said before I am truly sorry for whatever troubles you have experienced. As for the debate with James White, if he wants to debate either the question of theistic fatalism or who is the cause of sin, I will be happy to debate him as he knows. Why won’t James debate me at his church. If the senior pastor invites me to debate at the church I will but if I understand you right, you asked the youth pastor to help you in this matter. I do not think that is his call-though I could be wrong.
I have debated James White twice in print, three hours on the radio and once before a live audience in Irvine. He invited me to be with him on the dividing line and I accepted but then evidently he changed his mind. He knows how to get a hold of me and if he wants to debate me on a question that is of interest to me, I am in. For the record, as I told him, I have no problem with a cross-examination but all discussions about the terms and conditions of the debate must either put in writing. Things have a way of changing just before the debate. Anyway-Thanks-George
Mr. Bryson,
I’m surprised at how this blog entry has proven to be one of our top posts and still generate discussion though it was written sometime ago.
Concerning your response to Edward Smith, I typically try not to get involve when it gets personally heated, and I desire to see reconciliation rather than an offense kept among brothers in the Lord. I also prefer a discussion where there is more light than heat in the debate, even if at the end of the day we still disagree. I think that glorifies God more than bitterness does.
I want to step aside from any discussion of Calvinism and theology and speak to one another as Christian men, who are sinners saved by Jesus. I want to drop that discussion of theology and discuss about true mutual reconciliation.
Your address towards Edward Smith was the following,
“Although nothing I said was hostile toward you I do accept your apology and as I said before I am truly sorry for whatever troubles you have experienced. ”
I have been rather uncomfortable reading this, in light of your email response to Edward that you made public. Back in your comment on August 19, 2009 at 8:05 pm on this blog post, you did not seem to view highly name calling. I would imagine you believe that name calling is wrong? Apparently from your August 19, 2009 at 8:05 pm comment, you thought the idea of name calling was hostile enough that one should depart from such dialogue (implying those of us here at Veritas Domain were going to start doing so, which I do not believe the record show we did not). Fast-forward to today (November 30th, 2010), you tell Edward Smith that nothing you said was hostile even though your email correspondence reveals name-calling:
“I am not sure if you are a really good comedian or just out of high school or perhaps someone pretending to be a Calvinist.”
If you find it hostile for one set of believers (Reformed) to engage in name calling, is this not true for believers such as yourself? You basically called the guy a comedian, highschooler and pretend Calvinist.
Please don’t take my comment as written with ulterior motive, with an ax to grind if you will, because I’m a Calvinist. I write this in hope of seeing true reconciliation. I also don’t think everything Ed Smith said was right, and from his own words, he realized it. I hope if you respond, you give it some time before you write back and not see this as an attack. We in Veritas domain are small fishes to fry in the Reformed camp.
I see from your comment that both James White and yourself have different topic you guys wanted to pursue. If I recall, his debate prompt desire for any possible debate was different than your prompt. But if it ever were to be worked out, it appears to be something I would tune in for.
Thank you for listening me out.
Blessings,
SLIMJIM
Mr. Slim
As to your desire to see reconcilation you are making it difficult for at least me to believe you. Call me a skeptic. He apologized and I accepted his apology-you should be happy for us. Why not? As for how this was made public it was your forum that accepted and posted what he said. I just supplied the whole story-which is usually better than bits and pieces allowing others to fill in the gaps. If you see hostility in my words and response, you sense more than I did. As to how I found about this post so quickly, do not flatter yourself. Someone who I believe is a friend of yours (and not even an aquaintance of mine) sent me an e-mail-that evidently he did not tell you about. If I were to challenge you to debate me on the trinity and you had to say you deny the trinity is biblical so I could affirm the trinity is biblical, I think you would turn me down. Would it then be right to say that you are unwilling to debate me? If I were to challenge you to debate me at Calvin College and you did not respond to your challenge, should I assume that you were not willing to debate-as if you control who debates at Calvin College. How hope you get the picture. If not, what more can I say. I would be curious as to how you would have responded to an e-mail from a total stranger saying to you what was said to me. This would be instructive to all of us-I think.
Need a little help imagining what that might be like? Try this:
Dear Mr. Slim
I ran across your site in a search to find out if there is a single theologian within Prebyterianism. I live in the O.C. and attend a Presbyterian church, but have been to at least 6 other Reformed churches around the O.C. including the biggest Presbyterian church in O.C. I know R.C. Sproul Sr. is not nor are any of the teachers at Westminster, neither is John MacAthur Jr.. I have taken the time to study the two theologies and find your claims to be that of someone that hasn’t either done their homework or doesn’t have the tools necessary to distinguish between good and bad information.
The facts are the brightest and very best by about a million miles, when it comes to theologians and serious theological universities, all from camps where people actually that men have a free-will. I myself have proved using logic and modern science that the idea of the Reformed doctines of grace is another form of fatalism is true and can’t be proved otherwise. I read many of the works by the non-Reformed theologians and heard many of the silly weak arguments by the monergist camp (fatalists one and all) and they are laughable scripturally, logically, liguisitically, and every other reasonable way possible yet people like you try and put out propoganda claiming you know what you are talking because you hold a degree of some kind. As if that made you an authority on anything in the Bible! Check out freewill.com true grace Ministries sites and you will learn all your ideas hold no water with regards truth. Free-Will Freddie
Hey Slim-I am serious. How would you have responded? I might learn something that I can use in the future. In the mean time I hope and pray nothing but the best for Ed and you. Try to be happy for me and Ed. And if you can help arrange for a debate with White at his church or a Reformed church, I would be grateful. In Christ, George
Mr. Bryson,
I only wish you saw my genuine concern about what I saw was your claim that there was no hostility on your part on the guy. I wished you could have heard me out on my concern for you seeing you are in a pastor capacity and your speech on the guy (cf. James 3:1).
1a.) “As to your desire to see reconcilation you are making it difficult for at least me to believe you. Call me a skeptic. He apologized and I accepted his apology-you should be happy for us. Why not?”
I am happy to see our friend and brother in Christ confess to his sins and humbled himself.
1b.) “If you see hostility in my words and response, you sense more than I did. ”
Did you read why my comment about why I saw hostility according to your own standard of what is hostile? Back in your comment on August 19, 2009 at 8:05 pm on this blog post, you did not seem to view highly name calling. I would imagine you believe that name calling is wrong? Apparently from your August 19, 2009 at 8:05 pm comment, you thought the idea of name calling was hostile enough that one should depart from such dialogue (implying those of us here at Veritas Domain were going to start doing so, which I do not believe the record show we did not). Fast-forward to today (November 30th, 2010), you tell Edward Smith that nothing you said was hostile even though your email correspondence reveals name-calling: “I am not sure if you are a really good comedian or just out of high school or perhaps someone pretending to be a Calvinist.” If you find it hostile for one set of believers (Reformed) to engage in name calling, is this not true for believers such as yourself? You basically called the guy a comedian, highschooler and pretend Calvinist.
The reason why I commented was that I hope you owned up to the fact that you were hostile as well, and own up to it. That was all. If you did, I would drop the manner, no need to bring it up again.
1c.) “As to how I found about this post so quickly, do not flatter yourself.”
Nor was I trying to flatter myself. I think you are reading into what I write and my motives.
1d.) “Someone who I believe is a friend of yours (and not even an aquaintance of mine) sent me an e-mail-that evidently he did not tell you about.”
I’m glad a friend of mine took some godly initiative and had the courtesy to see to it that a charge gets addressed by you in person.
1e.) “. If I were to challenge you to debate me on the trinity and you had to say you deny the trinity is biblical so I could affirm the trinity is biblical, I think you would turn me down. Would it then be right to say that you are unwilling to debate me? If I were to challenge you to debate me at Calvin College and you did not respond to your challenge, should I assume that you were not willing to debate-as if you control who debates at Calvin College. How hope you get the picture. If not, what more can I say.”
I have no idea what does this have to do with my comment about Edward Smith and your correspondence with him. I was not trying to debate you or him or engage in theological controversies, as I’ve stated earlier. My last comment was just to point out something that I wish you consider concerning your speech as a fellow brother in the Lord.
1f.) “I would be curious as to how you would have responded to an e-mail from a total stranger saying to you what was said to me. This would be instructive to all of us-I think. Need a little help imagining what that might be like?”
My response? “Hey Freewill Freddie, wow, I’m suprised you would email me. How did you hear about me or get a hold of my email? Are you around the area brother? Maybe we can grab lunch sometimes to talk about this? Don’t worry, lunch will be on me. Oh, and it will be YOUR CHOICE; I don’t mind, just so long it’s not Italian brother. Let me know when you are ready, Freddie.”
I’ve done something similar to that before. Those of us behind Veritas domain in the past have open the same type of invivation to those who disagreed with us on this blog that were brothers in the Lord. Doesn’t mean it will be easy, I’ve been hurt and sniped at, but there have been times that God has also been gracious in granting someone a change of mind/attitude. I know it’s not easy, I evangelize weekly at a secular college campus and it’s hard work being godly in our debates and apologetics. It’s frustrating to realize one’s own sins and my fellow blogger ANDY has pointed out my sins in my conduct during evangelism and apologetics. I also thank God for that, without correction, I would have been blind by my short-sightedness and better thought of myself than I really am. It’s a painful and necessary part of Christian growth.
But I also realize your situation might be different: you’ve got more people to see than I do and probably won’t be able to invite a guy out for tacos.
1g.) “And if you can help arrange for a debate with White at his church or a Reformed church, I would be grateful.”
That’s beyond me. I know you two have had a history of debating one another in various venues on the topic of Calvinism.
Again, my recent comments are not to discuss about Calvary chapel and Calvinism, just pointing out the things you said.
I was also pretty taken aback at first with Ed’s comment, and was glad to see him repudiate his sin and call it for what it is and apologized. I know it’s not easy, it’s hard to practice humility at that level.
Hey Slim
I believe you are sincere in what you are saying but I also belive you are motivated in part by your desire to see someone you disagree with on another matter seem guilty of something in which he has no guilt. Hey-assigning motives to someone else words can be practiced and expressed by anyong. I have made plenty of mistakes and have committed more sins than I like to think about. However, I had and have no hostility to Ed. Let us leave it at that. As for what is out of your control, you seem to be getting and missing the point at the same time. Let us also just leave it at that. We both seem to agree that Ed was very sincere in his apology so let us give him a break in all this. We should all agree that God is good and gracious and I have already moved on. Have you?
To change the topic-I am curious as to what you think about the current tendency to restate the so-called Reformed doctrines of grace to make them sound more like what they non-Reformed doctrines of grace sound like? One example is the MacArthur, Piper, Driscol etc. suggestion that Christ died for the Reprobate or non-elect non-propitiously but for the elect propitiously. I know some in the Reformed community who seem to be saying that this is capitulation and others heralding it as a breakthrough. What say you? In Christ, George
George,
My recent comments have only focused on the point of name calling and honesty, not to get into any other contention.
Per what I said earlier, I will not pursue any theological debate on Reformed theology since this conversation concern Christian living and speech (not to go off subject from this serious manner to another topic such as atonement or debating James White, etc).
Seeing that brother Ed has commented again and is over it, I have no desire to labor on my observation concerning the statement that there was no hostility on your part. I’ll be happy at this point to disengage.
Hey Everybody,
I would like to say thank you to George for accepting my apology and Slim Jim for recognizing the difficulty involved in humbling oneself in public. I also want to point out that my problem is not having the ability to not get shocked, or not get uptight, or not get offended when someone acts human. Whether the offense is actual or merely perceived is not in question. If a person perceives some offense has happened in their mind and heart, then it is as real to them as an actual offense happening. The end results are the same if they get offended. That’s is why God, in His great wisdom, lets people like me hang themselves with their own hypocrisy as part of a long and difficult sanctification process that can’t be completed until glorification. Jesus wasn’t ever surprised at what anyone did because being God He already knew everything that men would do before it happened. Jesus understood the complete and total weakness of the flesh, yet for those He loves He doesn’t give up on them ever and uses a form of self awareness to bring people to repentance. I call it a form of self awareness because its source in from within for the Christian but it is not derived from the essence of a human being. It is from the Holy Spirit. This is how He shapes and molds the character of people incapable a doing it themselves. It’s not difficult to imagine the creator of the Universe has this ability.
With people like myself that have particular sins they struggle with, this self awareness and knowledge of sin and what it means to Him who saved us makes each repeated offense more painful and difficult to bear until we reach a point where our pride in that area is stripped and we are left as helpless as new born babies crying out to our Father to save us from ourselves in a moment of pure and beautiful humanity where our motives become pure for His healing love. A small piece dies to us each time this occurs in the arduous and difficult journey to glorification.
I believe, while each person’s journey is personal, every Christian travels down the same path as God wills it to be. For me it is anger I battle with. For others it is the love of money, power, worldliness, and or fame. Yet, for someone else it can be sex or drugs and anything else that God calls sin. For some reason some people are never brought to a self awareness of certain sins in their lives and continue on in them in happy bliss until glorification or the pit. Obviously if a person is saved, sin doesn’t keep them from glorification or no human on the face of the earth could be saved.
One a different subject: not all Calvary Chapels follow the Mosses Model of leadership. Some follow the examples given to us by God in the New Testament for Christian leadership in the first church where all of the elders/pastors have an equal say and no one person, other than God, has the power of veto. Many of the first churches planted by Paul and others didn’t even have elders/pastors in the beginning. It wasn’t until after false teacher started to arrive on the scene that God inspired Paul to advise other churches to institute elders/pastors (plural) in churches. It is my understanding that the institution of individual pastors, as senior pastors, and separation between the clergy and laity was formally established under Constantine and the formation of the Catholic Church around the 3rd century.
Tristan is around 40 years old and has been to prison. He has tattoos all over his body and arms. He is not your typical youngster youth pastor that is around 20 years old. He has a son that is around 20 years old. Not that some 20 year olds don’t have it together. He is very capable of making his own decisions, but he likely didn’t tell me it was okay of his own volition. If he had of his own volition, then it is just fine with me because I like to follow the model of the first church over other models men have instituted since that time for Christians. No offense to those that follow other ways.
Tristan(the Youth Pastor) and Steve(a pastor and Bible College Director) and I have had many heated battles in the years where I have called them names and they have gotten pretty ticked at me as well. What I said to George would not be a shock to them, yet they love me and I love them. Tristan didn’t bat an eye when I told him about it. He knows me and has read George’s book. We are not perfect people yet in our hearts we wish we didn’t have to suffer the pain and conflict that sin brings into every persons’ life which is the Lord’s way of making us desire to be perfect like Him. He is in control. Over time we have come realize it is not going to happen as long as we are shrouded in these fleshly bodies until day of glorification comes but that desire is what causes sanctification to continue for Christians throughout their life at varying rates and levels of understanding.
Our battles and the subsequent pain of conviction led us to repentance and are what have drawn us close. I didn’t know either of them when our first battles began, but our battles are what drew us together and made it so that we became to know each other. As a former soldier (Army) and gang member, I can tell you that this is how the bonds are formed where one person is willing to give their own life up for another. This is the true test of lasting relationships. It mimics the human condition between our Creator and those He saves exactly.
Nobody needs to feel sorry for me because I am a sinner and I lived a rough life. I often look at people raised in churches and feel sorry for them because many don’t have a clue about the other types of sin that shroud their entire existence and their idea of who they are. They often lack meaningful self awareness. I prefer someone that God brought to salvation late in life, or someone that had a long period of backsliding over many church lifers. I do like many church lifers, but some get deeply on my nerves. I think a person’s theology plays a significant role in how self aware they are about all types of sin in their life. I convinced of it having witnessed all sides of the equation first hand. Not from afar. Over the years I have been to at least 10 different kinds of churches (Charismatic, Catholic, Baptist, Southern Baptist, Calvary Chapel, non-denominational Reformed, Lutheran, Assemblies of God, Saddleback and some others I forget).
I am the only person at CCRSM that walks around with The Reformation Study Bible in hand although Tristan says he a different Reformer study Bible. He probably has the Geneva Bible. It is not easy being monergistic in synergistic denomination. I am not sure, but I think I am the only one in the church. Tristan, Steve, and John (The Senior Pastor) all hold to some tenants like the perseverance of the saints but the all believe in prevenient grace which makes them all synergists with varying degrees. Steve says he loves me because we share a love for the word of God. I love him because he loves me and put up with all my tirades over the years. It is the same with Tristan. But I should love everyone equally whether they love me or not. Ours is a love built by trials of fire directed by God. Few people can know how difficult it is unless they have lived it. I think one of the people from this site has. If it were not for God’s strength and the love of people like Tristan and Steve, which God also gets the credit, it would be unbearable for me.
If I can only remember my own words when situations come up where I should not be shocked or offended by anything anyone does! It will be then that my battle with pride will end and His love will flow through me in a less restricted manner. But then He will show some other area that I need help in and the battle will begin all over again.
It is true, “the battle is all His,” but that is only a reference to the fact that God has all the power and control of our particular situation. It does not mean we will not suffer through any pain no matter how much we want to claim we have perfected trusting in Him. It is through our pain that we draw our greatest lessons from. Pain is part of how God works.
Please don’t be shocked, and pray I am not anymore.
With Love,
Ed
Hey Ed
While I may disagree with you on a lot of things-even things you said in the above e-mail, you did a good job of communicating what is on your heart and mind. I am not be patronizing but simply applauding the tone and what seems like the obvious intent of your words. I do have a question with regard to why you are in a Calvary Chapel. Surely, there are a lot of Reformed churches in OC that would be more to your liking. I think John Piper and John MacArthur and many other Calvinists are great communicators and have many great things to say. But it would drive me bonkers to sit through their teaching on a regular basis. Why do you torment yourself this way?
On a related matter, if I showed up at a church that was distinctively Reformed and decided to make it my home church, I know it would trouble more than a few Calvinists. They would say that I was there to disrupt the unity or make waves or whatever. I suspect (and do not know) that your involvement in what you call a synergistic church is a little disconcerting to some. I am not advising you as to where you should go to church, but it seems to me that a person is only asking for heartaches when they choose a church home that believes so differently on such important matters. It is hard for me to imagine Slim happily involved in what Calvinists call a “man centered” church. Local churches are different than a forum like this. Forums like this invite controversy and differrences of opinion. I seriously doubt that a Reformed church in OC would welcome Slim’s counterpart of the other side of the Calvinist divide. I could be wrong. Anyway, have a good night. In Christ, George
Hey George,
I’m glad to see you understand how difficult it is for me at times. But it is not as easy as we sometimes might think. You see, I have been attending Calvary Chapels for the last 10 years and didn’t come to understand the monergistic theology until recently. I didn’t even know what theology was until recently! Ha-ha! I thought every Christian church taught and believed pretty much the same things. Except for the Catholics, I kept hearing words like darkness and such associated with them from a pastor at a different CC church I once attended for a few years.
I went through a long period of confusion when I found I couldn’t live up to the standards of what I was being taught at one church and became legalistic trying to. I started judging everyone that wasn’t like CC proper as if they weren’t Christians because they didn’t believe as we did. I was deeply involved in the church and was possibly being eyed as a future elder as long as I kept doing what they liked.
As I started to read my Bible more deeply, and started to do more studies on things I heard preached that didn’t sound right, I started to see things in a different light and started to see that I was not even close to being in God’s will. My eyes were opened to other things that clearly were not within God’s will as well.
I deeply cared for many people at that more traditional CC, but I knew it was time to move on. I discovered CCRSM which is about 8 miles from where I live. The people there were not full blooded Arminians and the leadership structure was more of a band of brothers than a strict hierarchy. They were full blooded synergists though. As time went on I spoke to them with warnings about worldliness and the love of money in the church, which is very prevalent here in O.C. Then one day I had an epiphany and came to the conclusion that it was God that needed to get credit for all things good done in His name and started to see where He had created and orchestrated every event in the Bible to serve his plan for mankind and had taken regular weak people and given them the faith they needed to get through particular situations they needed to get through for God’s work to be done. Otherwise they were pretty much left to their nature and committed many horrible sins. It was also clear to me that God included their horrible sins in every story so that we could see that they were not special in ability or righteousness outside His work through them to accomplish His work. I also noticed many people, including many scholars tried to hide and cover-up the biblical heroes sinful acts and make-up, what I considered ridiculous, excuses for what clearly was sinful behavior as something else because they wouldn’t accept the reality that God uses terribly messed up people to accomplish great things in His name.
In my Reformation Study Bible there is an example of this. They commented on Abram twice giving his wife over to other men who were Kings to save his own cowardly skin. While it doesn’t need to be said out loud, we all know in reality that means she could have been taken into these kings’ bed chambers and that Abram knew this and had acted in an extremely sinful manner, as well as Sarai for going along with it. Yet, the commentary tried to deny any wrong doing on their part. It’s almost laughable that someone could be so naïve, but to those that have lived the uglier side of life and experienced it, it is utterly preposterous to even suggest such a thing. I have seen others do the same for Joseph and other figures in the Bible. In each case it was clear that God did not have His hand on them at these times and allowed their true nature to be expressed. Each time it was He, God, which had to intervene by giving them something they didn’t posses of their own volition. This is what I saw and then I came to the realization that man didn’t deserve credit for anything good that was done in His name or had somehow accomplished something God wanted to happen. I could see God was in control and shaped all the events.
Shortly after that, a neighbor gave me two books. One by A.W. Pink and the other called the 5 points of Calvinism. After 21 pages of reading Pink’s book I understood fully God’s sovereignty in all things and then I read the other book. Everything fell into place.
I wanted to leave Calvary Chapel altogether, but one day I ran into a guy named Bat in the Home Depot parking lot. Bat is the youth pastor at San Juan Capistrano Community Church. It is a non-denominational Reformed church that I visited several times because my Jujitsu Sensei, Len Riley, was an elder there. This was before I knew squat about theology. I did notice a difference and really liked the church and their exceedingly loving attitude and devotion to God. But, my wife didn’t feel comfortable there because it was out of her comfort zone. Chuck baptized her in the ocean 32 years ago.
Bat and I talked in the parking lot that day and he urged me to stay because he thought God wanted me to and I didn’t want to particularly hear that at that moment in time.
CCRSM is very accepting of other theologies. Bat attends CCRSM Bible College and is going to be allowed to teach a class on systematic theology. That’s a pretty open CC!
As time went on I tried to leave, but God kept sending me back for some reason. I tried to tell myself it was to help bring them the rest of the way to monergism, but I see now there is more to it than anything my tiny prideful human brain can come up with. There are lessons to be learned in love and humility by myself (you have witnessed that) and a few of the pastors I have close relationships with at CCRSM. I am sure there is more to come, but it hasn’t all been revealed at this time. We are in a constant state of flux.
That is what suffering for the Lord is all about. Now I no longer look upon Catholics as lost souls. In fact, the most generous and giving church of any I know of are Catholic churches. Some of the people are very religious in a bad way and do works to earn their salvation in ways that are very ugly and apparent while others do works from the heart for our Lord and that is beautiful to see. I do not agree with all their theology, but I do sincerely believe them to be Christians despite what my former pastor taught.
On a side note, I once went to the Catholic Seminary on Santiago Canyon road and asked for help. A Priest spoke with me. For some reason he became agitated when he found I was not Catholic and yelled and cursed at me before turning me down. I was shocked at his behavior, but look at how I reacted to you. What does that make me? It makes me a hypocrite, but these are how lessons are learned. I was just reminded of that day! On another occasion I went to another Catholic church in Orange and they were so generous it was hard to believe. I developed a relationship of admiration and friendship with the lady that helped us. She did everything she could and even came to our house and took me to their pantry. They sent our children to camp in Santa Barbara for a week and many other wonderful loving substantial Christian things for us during hard times.
I’ve had 3 spinal operations over the years so we struggle at times. The last one was on Oct, 8th 2010 and they fused 2 levels and did a lamenectomy on a 3rd. I had 2 rods and 6 big screws put in. It stills hurts like crazy because it takes many months to heal. I have had 7 orthopedic surgeries in the last 20 years. My last one cost $198,000.00! Thank God my wife has a job at Kohl’s as a manager were we can get group insurance that takes people with pre-existing conditions or I would have went insane from the pain years ago.
It is not always about being comfortable where you are or worrying about upsetting people that have different views. Strife is always painful and difficult, but it is not always destructive in a negative sense—if you know what I mean. Sometimes the tearing down of things exposes things that need to be brought into the light and creates new materials from which we can build better more meaningful relationship with God and others. Some of those building materials help us grow to new heights of maturity in certain areas for we do not mature equally in all areas simultaneously.
This is how God works in His mysterious ways sometimes. Sometimes it is very nice and cordial, other times it takes some ground shaking.
I hope that answers your question.
God Bless,
Ed
Hello Mr. Bryson,
I am disappointed about some of the attitudes of people within the Calvary Chapel organization that don’t support you and your efforts to defend your position in debates. Specifically I am speaking of Dave Rolph. He is highly influential figure inside the Calvary Chapel Church, yet he called people that debate the subject of Calvinism and Calvary Chapel’s position “CLOWNS” which includes both you and James White. I know this because I saw the email from Dave that spoke about trying to get you and James White together at CCRSM. It is safe to assume that people like me that want to hear such debates are “CLOWNS” to. Dave Rolph went on further to say such debates were “juvenile pissing contests” and that he hoped he was “mature” enough to not participate in such things. I also believe comments like this must mean YOU are considered juvenile and lack maturity as a Christian for participating in such debates in the past and online.
I was seriously taken back when I saw Dave’s lack of support for his own people. Doesn’t the Bible have a long a clear history of debate in it? Wasn’t our country founded from the debates of concerned people? Someone needs to call Dave Rolph out to explain his statements and why he would imply you are a “CLOWN”, “Juvenile, and “Immature”. I think statements such as these that include people from his own church family are highly questionable and treason.
In Christ,
James Canon JR.
Hello Again,
I forgot to add that since Pastor Chuck endorsed your book about the Darkside of Calvinism, which is debate in book form, he must also be a “CLOWN”, “JUVINILE”, and “IMMATURE”. Unbelievable what some Calvary Chapels will say about their own brother’s!
In Christ,
James Canon JR.
Hey James
I know it is very cool today to use language on the Intenet that your mother might not approve of, but I try to avoid conversions where I suspect it will turn into a “who can be the most crude” contest. If you want to have a poltite and respectful conversation between adults I am in. By the way, I know I could be wrong since I do not know you, but I would include you as one of my “own brother’s”.
As much as I love Calvary Chapel and am happily serving along side Chuck (have been for 42 plus years) the brotherhood extends for me (and for Chuck) far beyond Calvary Chapel. It include Calvinists, Arminians and folks like me who are always right (that is a shutka in Russian).
When you have been around as long as I have, you make a lot of friends even among Calvinists. One of my earlier books was actually published by a Reformed publishing company and edited by a well-known Reformed scholar. I do not expect to find a Calvinist to agree with me about Calvinism.
As a talk show host for many years I interviewed a lot of people that I believe were wrong in their theology but right with God. R.C. Sproul Sr. was the most notable. I have never known him to try and make the issue a personal issue. The brotherhood or the family of God includes the cessationist John MacArthur Jr., the continuationists John Piper and Mark Driscoll, even an theistic evolutionist such as Tim Keller or C.S. Lewis. So if you want to have a conversion lets keep it adult like. In Christ, George
Just curious as to why my last post did not make it. I can see that it ing waiting moderation or something like that. Did I forget to include some info.
Mr. Bryson,
I’ve been busy in the middle of a paper for one of my class in Seminary and have not been here the last few days because of ministry obligation and my part time job. For some reason most of the comments end up being in our pending box, while others get through just fine.
It seems if one has commented here more than once it is more likely to be put off as “pending”.
There is no foul play on our part.
Gee Mr. Bryson,
I hope you didn’t think it was my words I was using that sounded like my mother might not approve of. I can promise you she wouldn’t be all that offended by hearing such words. She wasn’t raised in a bubble. Those were the words of a huge name Pastor in Calvary Chapel, Dave Rolph, with regards to you and James White debating the subject of Calvinism and Arminianism.
I logically extended the words to anyone interested in debating such issues and, of course the person that endorsed your book because the subject was a debate in book form.
I can see how p…ing contest might offend some of the more sensitive people, but the other two words; clowns, and juvenille, were only offensive in the context in which Pastor Dave Rolph used tham towards you and James White specifically, and anyone else that debates anything indirectly including the apostle Paul and Jesus to name a few.
I thought it odd that someone from your own denomination and a major figure in your chruch would express such an attitude about your activities.
I guess I have much to learn about how things work in my own church. Sorry to have bothered you.
James Canon JR.
Gee Mr. Canon
I would say to a Calvary Chapel pastor what I said to you if he wrote me and said what you said. Now if you are concerned about something I said, quote me and let me know what troubles you about it. If you you are loosing sleep over what someone else may have said or is suggesting about me you will need to take that up with them. I have been called a lot of things by a lot of people. A few that are complementary and many not so much. In Christ, George
Mr. Bryson,
So, it is kill the messenger? You are a hard man to like even if we are from the same denomination. You mock people and call them names and generally do all you can to make people angry so they respond in an unchristian manner. I haven’t read anything you didn’t have coming to you. I saw where you commented that someone tipped you off to something you wanted to hear and that was just fine. When I do it concerning a Calvary Chapel pastor’s comments that are unflattering towards you so you could defend yourself, I get attacked. People have tried to make claims that there is some kind of weird cover-up tactics in our church when it comes to pastors like in the Catholic Church, but I didn’t believe them. I guess the reports are accurate. I heard the word pastor used in connection with you. I was wondering if that is a profession you continue in? If it is, I wouldn’t care to be associated with that ministry. There doesn’t seem to be any love in you, just legalistic religious attitudes. A works ethic that rivals that of many Catholics. Shame on you sir.
Slim Jim, I don’t hold to all your beliefs, but you are 10 times the gentleman Mr. Bryson is and display a loving Christian attitude. He never says he is sorry for anything. He just attacks constantly and then puts on a self-righteous cloak. I think I should rethink my position if Mr. Bryson is typical of what Pastor Chuck produces. Can you recommend any books to read where I can get a better understanding of your theology?
Mr. Bryson our conversation is over. I will not respond to you again.
In Christ,
James Canon JR.
Gee Mr. Canon
So you felt that I was trying to kill the messenger or that you were being attacked by what I said? Some people are so clever that they can see so much more than I can in what I say. Why don’t we end our interaction because I might say something really mean like I prefer a civil conversation over other kinds. In Christ, George
[…] of course at a much smaller scale, our blog also is no stranger to dialogues concerning Calvinism (see for instance the comment section of this post). Over all the comments at Wintery Knight were cordial. From a quick scan, I thought the most […]