Friday, August 19, 2011

Why it is Important to Go Back to the Sources, Illustrated.

The following is a transcript of about four minutes from an informal radio debate from the Bible Answer Man program (source):
James White: I think it was God's purpose to preserve the children of Israel alive in Egypt. So it was his purpose to send Joseph and he did so by having him sold into slavery in Egypt.

George Bryson: Well, let me answer that with a question. Let me ask you this question - and this will put in perspective to show the difference. When a child is raped, is God responsible and did He decree that rape?

White: If he didn't, then that rape is an element of meaningless evil that has no purpose. What I'm trying to point out, by going to Scripture --

Hank Hanegraaff: So what is your answer there? Because I want to understand the answer to that question.

White: I'm trying to go to Scripture to answer it. The reason --

Hanegraaff: But what is the answer to the question he just asked, so that we can understand what the answer to the question is.

White: I mentioned to him, yes, because if not then it's meaningless and purposeless and though God knew it was going to happen He created it without a purpose. That means God brought the evil into existence, knowing it was going to exist, but for no purpose, no redemption, nothing positive, nothing good. I say --

Hanegraaff: So, he did decree and if he decreed it, then there's meaning to it.

White: that he - it has meaning, it has purpose, suffering (all suffering) has purpose, everything in this world has purpose. There is no basis for despair. But if we believe that God created knowing all this was going to happen, but with no decree. He just created and there is all this evil out there, and there's no purpose, then every rape, every situation like that is nothing but purposeless evil and God is responsible for the creation of despair. And that is not what I believe.

Bryson: For years, I've been trying to figure out why it is that in order for rape to exist - or - unless God caused it to happen - there can't be any purpose in it. God can use evil and he does. But to blame God, which is what a decree does, to blame God for the rape of a child is a horrible attack on the very character and love of God.

White: How about to blame God for the destruction of the heart of a father, thinking his son has been killed for many years - the weeping that he underwent. Genesis 50:20 has not been answered yet. And Acts chapter 4 tells us that the early church believed that Pontius Pilate and Herod and the Romans and the Jews in the crucifixion of the sinless son of God ( which I believe we would all agree is the greatest evil that man has ever committed) that that took place on the basis of the sovereign decree of God (Acts 4:27-28). If you could tell me both what you believe Acts 4:27-28 means and --

Bryson: Let me ask you if you think that rape is a sin.

White: I believe that -- Can we use a biblical example, Acts 4:27-28?

Bryson: Rape is a biblical issue, is rape a sin?

White: Just as the crucifixion was a sin, yes.

Bryson: Ok. So, does God decree, and therefore is God the cause of, sin?

White: Again, as you well know, having read all of these things, let me just read this into everyone's hearing, so they can see it. The early church said: "For truly in this city there were gathered against your holy servant Jesus, whom you annointed, both Herod, Pontius Pilate, along with the gentiles and the peoples of Israel to do whatever your hand and your purpose predestined to occur. And so here is an example where men committed evil and they did so at the predestining purpose of God. God is glorified. His intention is positive and good. The intention of Herod - the intention of the Jews - These were not innocent people and God's standing behind them with a big gun, pushing them down the road, going "Be evil, be evil." In fact, how many times did God restrain them!

Hanegraaff: So, they're making a choice in the process, in your view.

White: They're not only making a choice.

Hanegraaff: So, they have the ability to choose.

White: Within the realm of their nature, since they are fallen. Remember, God restrains men from committing evil. Let me ask you, do you believe that?

Bryson: Why are men fallen? That is the question.

White: Do you believe that?

Bryson: The question is, why are men fallen?

White: Could I ask - could I finish a point - Do you believe that God can keep someone from sinning?

Bryson: I would like to ask you the question, is God the cause of that sin? That's the issue. God can do anything.

White: I've already pointed out, Genesis 50, that God's decree is based upon his good intention. Can God keep a person from sinning? Will he violate libertarian free will, to keep a person from sinning, yes or no?

Bryson: That's not a yes or no question.
The above (presumably - since it seems to be the closest section) got summarized this way by John Rabe (source):
And IMHO, White got his clock cleaned. Granted, the deck was stacked against him, as he had to debate both Bryson and Hanegraaff, who was certainly less than an impartial moderator.

White let Bryson frame the terms of the debate from the git-go, which doomed him. The general thrust of it came across like this:

BRYSON: Calvinists believe that God is an evil potentate who causes sin and tyranically damns people for no good reason and causes babies to be raped.

WHITE: Yes, and here's why I believe that. Genesis 50 says...

ME, LISTENING ON INTERNET: Groan.
Then, that converted by a lady named Barb into this (source):
A loose paraphrase from the James White and George Bryson debate on Bible Answer Man:
begin paraphrase:
BRYSON: Calvinists believe that God is an evil potentate who causes sin and tyranically damns people for no good reason and causes babies to be raped.

WHITE: Yes, and here's why I believe that. Genesis 50 says...
end paraphrase

Yikes! With friends like this who needs enemies?
Then, it got quoted in Bryson's book (The Dark Side of Calvinism, p. 372) this way:
Even more pointed, in comments found on the Internet in a section called “Whilin’ Away the Hours,” the Calvinist John Rabe offers what he calls:
“A loose paraphrase from the James White and George Bryson debate on the Bible Answer Man:

“begin paraphrase:

“BRYSON: Calvinists believe that God is an evil potentate who causes sin and tyrannically damns people for no good reason and causes babies to be raped.

“WHITE: Yes, and here’s why I believe that. Genesis 50 says ...

“end paraphrase[.]

“Yikes! With friends like this who needs enemies?”612
Remember what the apostle James says:
Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning. (James 1:17)
If the Calvinist is right, then James could and perhaps should also have said:
Every good and bad gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights and darkness.
I can understand why the admission of White is so disturbing to Calvinists. In his defense, however, White is only admitting what should be obvious to all Calvinists.
Finally, Micah Coate turned this into (A Cultish Side of Calvinism, p. 283)
In debating George Bryson, leading Calvinist James White admitted to Calvinism's view of God. The following is a loose paraphrase from this debate:

BRYSON: Calvinists believe that God is an evil potentate who causes sin and tyrannically damns people for no good reason causes babies to be raped.

WHITE: Yes, and here’s why I believe that. Genesis 50 says ...

BRYSON: Yikes! With friends like this who needs enemies? 558
I ask you whether you could provide a better of example of why it is important to go back to the original sources to see what a person actually admitted and actually did not admit.

-TurretinFan

UPDATE: Dr. White has provided to the use of this material here:


98 comments:

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

"I ask you whether you could provide a better of example of why it is important to go back to the original sources to see what a person actually admitted and actually did not admit."

Thanks, but no thanks.

I may be in the minority position, but I honestly think James White got the better of the debate during this one snippet.

natamllc said...

Two things come to mind from my perch high in the depth of the Redwood forests of Northern California.

Bryson and Hanegraaff saw the hand appear and the writing on the wall kind of like what occurred with King Belshazzar and realized that their clocks were about to get cleansed by Dr. White so they both simultaneously knee jerked at the same appropriate moments and ganged up on Dr. White to keep him from clockin' em'.

God permitted His servant to suffer. "Oh, poor James!" White can go away with these fond memories, albeit, not to the letter, just to the "spirit":

Act 5:41 Then they left the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the name.

...

Act 6:9 Then some of those who belonged to the synagogue of the Freedmen (as it was called), and of the Cyrenians, and of the Alexandrians, and of those from Cilicia and Asia, rose up and disputed with Stephen.
Act 6:10 But they could not withstand the wisdom and the Spirit with which he was speaking.
Act 6:11 Then they secretly instigated men who said, "We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and God."


The one thing I would like these three to debate at some time in the future, if not yesterday, is the doctrine, the person and the power of Satan as is revealed in a number of places in Scripture, like here:

Act 26:18 to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.'

george said...

I am a amazed that years after I quoted John Rabe, using what he said in my book has created such a stir. It seems to me that Rabe had a right to be honest about how he felt (at the time) about the exchange he heard on BAM. I am told (by Mr. White) that Mr. Rabe now regrets what he said and has apologized to Mr. White. I feel he has a right to regret and apologize for what he wrote but I honestly fail to see what he has to regret and apologize for. It is not like he agreed with me or anything I said. For a man that has earned the reputation of being an MMA apologetic cage fighter and a Reformed pit bull, Mr. White seems to have very thin skin. Your non-Reformed brother in Christ, George

Turretinfan said...

George:

One of the problems here is that your your use of Barb's material (cited as Rabe's material) wasn't honest. You know full well (or at least you should) that Dr. White didn't "admit" to your caricature.

So, your use of the material is something you should be ashamed of, whether or not Dr. White even sees you try to get away with it.

Go back and listen to the debate for yourself, if you don't trust the transcript.

There's simply no way that this (BRYSON: Calvinists believe that God is an evil potentate who causes sin and tyrannically damns people for no good reason causes babies to be raped. WHITE: Yes, and here’s why I believe that. Genesis 50 says ...) accurately represents the debate, and I'm pretty sure you know it.

-TurretinFan

Robert Warren said...

Dr. White has experience in this matter (I actually heard a man slander him on the audio of a conference, and I've heard second-hand accounts of his slandering), so he hardly needs my advice. But if I were the victim of these lies, I would contact the elders of both Bryson and Coate (if they have elders) with the objective of church discipline as a substitute for civil lawsuit.

george said...

Dear whoever you are. Are you saying that that this Barb was pretending to be a John Rabe. Yesterday I heard White say that a John Rabe bent over backwards to apologize him for what what a John Rabe said (and I quoted) or something to that effect. Did John Rabe apologize to White or was it a Barb? And what part (if any) did you have in posting comments from a Barb that was pretending to be a Barb? Is this a "who's on first" thing? Your non-Reformed brother in Christ

Turretinfan said...

Dear George,

a) No. I'm not saying that. I'm saying you knew Dr. White didn't admit what that paraphrase suggests he admitted.

b) As for "who is on first," I'm inclined to exhort you to clean up the mess you made with your citation yourself. However, I suspect that you are sincerely confused, so here goes ...

c) Barb posted something on her blog (Whilin' Away the Hours, the blog you cited in your book) that incorporated material from Rabe's post to a web forum. However, the lines "A loose paraphrase from the James White and George Bryson debate on Bible Answer Man:" "begin paraphrase:" "end paraphrase" and "Yikes! With friends like this who needs enemies?" were actually Barb, not Rabe. Barb was not pretending to be anyone.

d) Rabe apologized for saying what he said. That doesn't excuse you for quoting something misleading, when you know that it doesn't accurately represent what Dr. White said. I don't think Barb has had any public comment on the matter, and why should she? Surely it's not her fault that you cited her words as Rabe, nor is it her fault that you decided to repeat her words and Rabe's stylized portrayal as though it reflected some "admission" from Dr. White.

-TurretinFan

george said...

Ok-time for everyone to take a deep breath. The only time I mentioned anything about James admitting something I said:

I CAN UNDERSTAND WHY THE ADMISSION OF WHITE IS SO DISTURBING TO CALVINISTS. IN HIS DEFENSE, HOWEVER, WHITE IS ONLY ADMITTING WHAT SHOULD BE OBVIOUS TO ALL CALVINISTS.

If you look in my book or on this thread you will see that James answered "yes" to the question I asked him. He answered "yes" several times but I kept pressing him on it because I wanted to make sure there was no "wiggle room" in his "yes" answer. James obliged me with by repeating "yes". In different ways James. My legitimate use of the "loose paraphrase" material only supported my contention that not all Calvinist agreed that he should have provided a "yes" answer. In fact, some of the critical comments made about His answer of "yes" to my question served to further support the point the I made. A number of Calvinist clearly interpreted his "yes" answer as a mistake on his part as well as a departure. I thought that the loose paraphrase supported my view that the "yes" answer was an admission and I think a lot of Calvinists would agree with me on that much. Let us all just get a grip and move on. There is nothing libelous in what I said about James or in what I say he admitted (which is "yes" to my question). I know that I am not going to get a lot of sympathy among the Reformed and I am not looking for any. But I refuse to believe that the Calvinists on this site think that the "yes" that he provided to my question and repeated under some prodding, makes me libelous or even dishonest. Perhaps I have misjudged some of you. In Christ, your non-Reformed brother in Christ.

ChaferDTS said...

I personally consider George Bryson a liar in what he said of Dr. James White. That is very troubling for him to feel the need to grossly distort and mispresent Calvinism. He is an anti-Calvinist of the worst kind. I view Hank Hanegraff as having a very bad understanding of Calvinism as well. He always takes shots at it on his programs. Neither of them are able to stay with the text of Scripture and deal with the passages which support the Calvinistic position. They appear to be bent on forcing Scripture to their 4 point Arminianism / modified Semi Pelagianism. ( They flip flop between Arminianism and Pelagianism in their discussions ) . Dr. James White does need to expose the lies that were said of him. I am glad he is.

Turretinfan said...

George:

So, instead of expressing sorrow and repentance for misrepresenting Dr. White, you are seeking to justify yourself? Anyone can up to the post and see what you did. You really think that they are going to believe you were honestly representing the debate in your book? I think you need to open your eyes, friend.

-TurretinFan

george said...

The author of the "loose paraphrase" (who loosely paraphrased me as well as James) was I believe upset with what he or she believed James said or implied by what he said on BAM at least as much as he or she was upset about the question I answered. Some folks are upset that I asked the question. I can live with that. Some folks are upset with how they understood him to be answering the question. Can James live with that. Or is everyone who understands him differently than he wants to be understood guilty of libel and in need of repentance, sorrow etc. I read comments by Calvinist all the time who do not understand what I am saying the way I think they should. I might attempt to correct their understanding and that is part of a back and forth. I disagree with how Calvinist understand the words of Jesus and Paul. They disagree with how I understand Jesus and Paul. This provides and opportunity for discussion and clarification. It should not be used as an excuse for personally attacks and accusations. The very first comments I found on this thread concerning James and his comments in the debate seemed to be the some loyal Calvinists did not like how he answered my question. So what? In Christ, your non-Reformed brother. George

george said...

Sorry and one word correction is needed asked not answered

The author of the "loose paraphrase" (who loosely paraphrased me as well as James) was I believe upset with what he or she believed James said or implied by what he said on BAM at least as much as he or she was upset about the question I asked. Some folks are upset that I asked the question. I can live with that. Some folks are upset with how they understood him to be answering the question. Can James live with that. Or is everyone who understands him differently than he wants to be understood guilty of libel and in need of repentance, sorrow etc. I read comments by Calvinist all the time who do not understand what I am saying the way I think they should. I might attempt to correct their understanding and that is part of a back and forth. I disagree with how Calvinist understand the words of Jesus and Paul. They disagree with how I understand Jesus and Paul. This provides and opportunity for discussion and clarification. It should not be used as an excuse for personally attacks and accusations. The very first comments I found on this thread concerning James and his comments in the debate seemed to be the some loyal Calvinists did not like how he answered my question. So what? In Christ, your non-Reformed brother. George

By the way, if you are really tired of hearing about this and having me post (as you probably are) just close it off to comments-I will not be offended. But if you make accusations or allow others to make accusation, it seems only right that I respond


Sunday, August 21, 2011 5:12:00 PM

ChaferDTS said...

Hi George. I feel that it is very wrong to put forth words that another person did not say. And I personally feel that you went beyond what Dr. James White stated.

I feel your basic error is about the distinction that Calvinist make betwee primary and secondary causes. God did not create man with a fallen sin nature. This came about as a result of the fall of Adam and Eve and reproduced offspring with this corrupted sin nature and all the way down to the entire human race except Jesus. The image of God in man since the fall is corrupted. God is not the author of sin since he did not place that desire in to their hearts. Sin finds it's root in the heart first which results in sinful actions. Man is the one who commits sinful acts and not God. God in His sovereignity included sin take place within creation. It shows the difference between God and man. In the end it reveals God as Savior.

"I know that I am not going to get a lot of sympathy among the Reformed and I am not looking for any."

While I am properly classified as being Calvinistic I am also dispensational premillennial. Most who embrace Covenant Theology would not consider me " Reformed " though I do hold to the Five Solas. I do believe that you were wrong in what you did. You should repent and say sorry to Dr. James White and correct what you wrote and then move on ward in this debate over the issue of election. Due to anti-Calvinism works such as what you wrote, that of Norman Geisler and Mr. Dave Hunt it has brought forth alot of hatered and dislike towards Calvinist. Even fellow dispensationalist have called me heretical or I have a different God than they do. Those anti-Calvinist works has such things as " the God of Calvinism " and things of that nature which causes me to think those such as yourself or Mr. Dave Hunt to view Calvinist as nothing more than heretics. I have nothing personal againist you at all. But in debates such as the one on election honesty in our lines of arguments that we use is a must and to seek to avoid any misrepresentation of others.

Turretinfan said...

George you asked: "Or is everyone who understands him differently than he wants to be understood guilty of libel and in need of repentance, sorrow etc."

I was actually saying that you personally (not "everyone") should repent for representing the debate in a way that you know wasn't truthful (not of understanding him differently than he wants to be understood).

Let's put the question to you bluntly: Do you really think that James White believes that God is an evil potentate who causes sin and tyrannically damns people for no good reason causes babies to be raped.

Is that really what you think he believes? If it is not, then you ought to repent of publishing something that says he admitted to believing that.

-TurretinFan

george said...

Dear Chafer DTS

I appreciate that you did not feel a need to call me a liar this time. You said:

"I personally feel that you went beyond what Dr. James White stated.

Actually I quoted someone who said they were presenting a "loose paraphrase" of what he said. I think it was an honest and fair "loose paraphrase". Everything I said White said White actually said. Everything I think he implied by what he said many Calvinists agreed that his words implied this. Few people like the way White or their theological opponents characterize their position. That does not mean that
White needs to repent, apologize, recant or is guilty of libel.

Dear Terrintanfan

I accept that you have a right to your view of what I actually did, but I do not believe your understanding of what I said or even quoted others saying is an accurate or even reasonable interpretation of the facts. If I were trying to make you happy, I would have to tip toe around statements or views I disagree with. It seems to me you are asking of me what you are not asking of yourself or of Calvinists. It is difficult to believe you read my last post or that you understand the point I was making. I can live with that. Can you? In Christ, your non-Calvinist brother-George

Prince Asbel said...

In other words, (if you are, in fact, George Bryson specifically, and I've no reason to think you aren't) then you're doing exactly what you did with the incomplete quotation from Douglas Wilson on the back of your first book The Five Point of Calvinism Weighed and Found Wanting. You used his remarks as a citation as if Douglas recommended your book (and I can quote you directly from the MP3 of your 2003 Calvary Chapel Pastor's Conference where you said that), and when everyone figured out that that's the exact opposite of what Douglas had done, you still refused to admit you were dishonest and poo-pooed those who'd revealed your dishonesty to others.

Now you're being dishonest yet again and are refusing to admit it. If there's one thing, George, that you continue to confirm for me as the years go by, is that you arminians/non-Calvinists have an amazing capacity for lying through your teeth. It comes so naturally to you guys. You make it look so easy.

On that note you're right, you may as well not care about gaining respect from this particular reformed man because you're not going to get any if you keep lying over and over and over again.

Turretinfan said...

George:

Your words "I can understand why the admission of White is so disturbing to Calvinists," and "White is only admitting what should be obvious to all Calvinists," convey to the reader that Dr. White admitted that "Calvinists believe that God is an evil potentate who causes sin and tyranically damns people for no good reason and causes babies to be raped." That's a misleading impression, and I'm glad you're not in this comment box sticking by that.

Let me briefly address your idea of how James could be rephrased. Let me remind you of this:

And there was a day when his sons and his daughters were eating and drinking wine in their eldest brother's house: and there came a messenger unto Job, and said, The oxen were plowing, and the asses feeding beside them: and the Sabeans fell upon them, and took them away; yea, they have slain the servants with the edge of the sword; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee.

While he was yet speaking, there came also another, and said, The fire of God is fallen from heaven, and hath burned up the sheep, and the servants, and consumed them; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee.

While he was yet speaking, there came also another, and said, The Chaldeans made out three bands, and fell upon the camels, and have carried them away, yea, and slain the servants with the edge of the sword; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee.

While he was yet speaking, there came also another, and said, Thy sons and thy daughters were eating and drinking wine in their eldest brother's house: and, behold, there came a great wind from the wilderness, and smote the four corners of the house, and it fell upon the young men, and they are dead; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee.

Then Job arose, and rent his mantle, and shaved his head, and fell down upon the ground, and worshipped, And said, Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither: the LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD.

In all this Job sinned not, nor charged God foolishly.
(Job 1:13-22)

Turretinfan said...

Job can bless God also for suffering and the loss of his children. Calvinists can as well. Can you?

I appreciate that you call me your brother, and I am willing to believe that you have not yet seen that you have sinned against our brother, Dr. White. But, if and when you do see that the way you used the Internet material was not honoring of the truth, I encourage you to repent.

-TurretinFan

george said...

Dear Prince

If you know anything about the accusations of "selective quoting" you will also know Douglas Wilson read what I wrote in on the back of my book and through his
s representative said that I used it properly. For some reason. Many Calvinists just cannot accept that fact some Calvinists believe that some non-Calvinists understand and fairly and accurate represent Calvinism. I realize that is very difficult thing for some Calvinist to accept and understand. So be it. Do you really want to go down this road? In Christ, George

george said...

Dear Turrentenfan

I am sure this is how you see it but what you are asking of me you would not ask of a Calvinist or anyone who disagreed with someone else. In effect, you are saying I must quote people saying things James White likes. Are you seriously saying that this quote does not reflect the honest opinion of the person I quoted? I would love to hear that person say so. If that quote is not a fair "loose paraphrase" of what they understood James to be admitting in his "yes" answer to my question, then they might owe James White an apology. Have you read how James White characterizes the views of those he disagrees with? And is it really right for a caller to call me a liar when I believe everything I affirm. You could say George is wrong? How hard would that be? If I came on this site and called everyone I disagreed with a liar, it would not be very polite or civil or
Christ like. What if I just started calling everyone who disagrees with me a liar? Would that make everyone feel better? Or is this a double standard. You can call George anything you want and that is OK because we do not like what he says or the way he says it. Would it would be unChristian for George to say the the Calvinists who disagree with me on this site are liars? If I did that I am sure I would be banned from the site and understandably so? Does anyone else see a double standard here? In Christ, George

Turretinfan said...

George:

I think you are missing the point.

Let's make try my best to communicate it.

1) Do you think Dr. White admitted this: "Calvinists believe that God is an evil potentate who causes sin and tyrannically damns people for no good reason causes babies to be raped"?

2) If so, then I would say you are wrong, but I cannot call you a "liar."

3) If you do not think that, but you still printed it, and called it Dr. White's "admission" then you were not being honest.

4) Going back to if you think Dr. White admitted that, it is hard to see how you could possibly arrive at that conclusion. Did you not hear Dr. White saying that God has a good purpose (or reason) in everything that happens, even the bad things?

5) If you did not hear him say that, then again - you are just mistaken (and everyone can see that you're mistaken).

6) But if you did hear him say that, then you're not being honest when you say that he admitted God decrees bad things to happen for no good reason.

Does that make it clear? And what are your answers?

-TurretinFan

Prince Asbel said...

If you know anything about the accusations of "selective quoting" you will also know Douglas Wilson read what I wrote in on the back of my book and through his
s representative said that I used it properly.


Oh, I remember you making the claim that a critic called D.W.'s assistant, and he told you that his assistant said you used it properly. In other words you say someone approved your use of his quote, but you A) can't prove a word of this, and B) the fact that you still haven't called D.W. yourself since that time proves that even you don't trust your own story! That's probably the most obvious evidence to me that you still know you lied but you won't admit it. Again, you arminians and non-calvinists are a model for dishonest people everywhere.

Just as a little extra note, you also happened to deny that you used that quote as an endorsement, yet in the MP3 you said he recommended you by the quote that you read from the back of your book. You can't even keep your own story straight either.

Do you really want to go down this road? In Christ, George

Happy to. It's not as if there's some doubt as to your behavior in this matter. If anything, this will help prove to other people who aren't yet acquainted with your shenanigans just how far you'll go in lying about other people.

natamllc said...

I believe it would be fair to observe that the hole has just gotten deeper!

I know how painfully embarrassing it is to just admit I am wrong especially when I have an internally perceived reputation of myself I believe needs to be upheld externally.

The inward thought exposed: "just what will I be considered as being now that I have been cornered by my mistake"?

The lines are deep and long.

Does "total depravity" come to mind?

Again, this whole experience here reminds me of the little phrase the Lord put in my mind some years ago about what the forgiveness of my sin entails:

The solution to the pollution is not dilution, it's absolution.

If there is no guilt, there is no need to be absolved of it.

Come on George! Experience the sense of being absolved by these Godly men! They actually, truthfully and truly believe they, too, as I, am totally depraved and are willing to rejoice in the Truth!

Mat 9:11 And when the Pharisees saw this, they said to his disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?"
Mat 9:12 But when he heard it, he said, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick.
Mat 9:13 Go and learn what this means, 'I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.' For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners."

...

"...1Co 13:6 it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth."

george said...

Dear Terrentin

What is missing is that this was all about White's answer which was "yes" to me question. That is all I am saying he admitted to. The question as whether or not John Rabe was right in his understanding of what what was implying is between Rabe and White and I keep hearing that Rabe apologized for what he said and White accepted his apology. Now do I think that Rabe was fair in his loose paraphrase? Yes. I have that right even if he does not think (in hindsight it was fair. In Christ, George

george said...

Dear Prince you said:

...I remember you making the claim that a critic called D.W.'s assistant, and he told you that his assistant said you used it properly. In other words you say someone approved your use of his quote, but you A) can't prove a word of this, and B) the fact that you still haven't called D.W. yourself since that time proves that even you don't trust your own story! That's probably the most obvious evidence to me that you still know you lied but you won't admit it.

I am beginning to think that you would prefer it if I did not confuse you with the facts. But the facts are very different than you suggested. I did not solicit and endorsement from Doug Wilson. Never met him. Do not know him. I found what I included on the back of my book and inside my book in a more complete form, asked around about him to see if he was a knowledgeable Calvinist and was directed to something R.C. Sproul Sr. said about Him. I have read a lot of R.C. Sproul books and articles and listen to a lot of his talks. I respect him as a man who knows Calvinism. I even interviewed him on my radio show Scripturally Speaking. He said some great things about Wilso so I decided to use what Wilson said. A Calvinist accused me of misquoting him and another Calvinist called Doug (a Calvinist everyone seemed to know and who had accused me of misusing Doug's words. Doug's assistant wrote the Calvinist (not me) said that he sent Doug what I said on my book and then the assistant wrote the Calvinist (not me) and the Calvinist (not me) posted Doug's approval of the way I was using what he said on the very site I was accused of misusing the quote. Only the Calvinist that talk to Doug's assistant apologized for the false accusation and several just repeated the charges (ignoring the facts) as some still do. I can live that. Can you? In Christ, George

george said...

I am going to try and make this my last post for a while because like many of you I still have a job to get ready for. I would like to ask one question. Is there a Calvinist among you who has actually read white wrote along with what Rabe wrote that sees a problem with (and is not afraid to say so)with the conclusion that what I have said is a libelous lie. I am not asking if you agree with me theology or disagree with White's theology. You would not be much of a Calvinist if you agree with my theology. I am asking if you see a problem with how many on this site are interpreting what I did. You can believe someone is theologically wrong without believing they have committed wrong in the process of attempting to refute someone you disagree with. Are you all on the same page or is there even one respected among you who sees this differently. Just curious. In Christ, George

natamllc said...

This is a bit off the main pathway, now, but I have a question for you George?

You just wrote this as a fact:

"...But the facts are very different than you suggested. I did not solicit and endorsement from Doug Wilson. Never met him. Do not know him. I found what I included on the back of my book and inside my book in a more complete form, asked around about him to see if he was a knowledgeable Calvinist and was directed to something R.C. Sproul Sr. said about Him. I have read a lot of R.C. Sproul books and articles and listen to a lot of his talks. ...".

So, this is puzzling to me about you and your ways of doing things which seems to me several now have questioned openly and from their experience with you have established are your ways.

You admittedly are not a Reformed brother. What classification of brother you are would be nice to know if you would clear that one up?

Being someone other than a Reformed brother, you use a reformational thinker's thoughts, quoting them on the back jacket and the inside jacket of a book you wrote presumably to sell to anyone who would buy it and you did it as a fact established by you, not a Reformed brother, without getting direct permission from that Reformed brother? So hearsay was all you needed to publish his remarks on the jacket of your book?

Doesn't that look a bit odd to even a novice like me that you would do that? The way I am sensing it is your manners are wanting and maybe, just maybe, a little bit nefarious?

This is also an indication that these brothers in here, three of them counting might just have a cause to question your ways would it not? Or not?

Go Share Your Faith said...

George,
I'm disappointed in your behavior; though not totally surprised.

I listed to the BAM broadcast several times and I remember cringing, but my cringing was due to your ability to dodge direct questions...

Here, you've demonstrated that you also do not have the humility to just say..."yes...I guess I made a boo boo, I know that Dr. White does not believe what my snippet of a quote seems to indicate" and just move on.

We've all (as Christians) have had to man-up and repent of "stretching the truth" at times, ....trust me; it hurts at first, but it's necessary.


You know that what you quoted does not accurately represent Dr. White's view and the more you try and throw up a smoke-screen the more embarrassing it becomes.

george said...

Dear Nata

You just wrote this as a fact:

"...But the facts are very different than you suggested. I did not solicit an endorsement from Doug Wilson. Never met him. Do not know him. I found what I included on the back of my book and inside my book in a more complete form, asked around about him to see if he was a knowledgeable Calvinist and was directed to something R.C. Sproul Sr. said about Him.

Anyone can find support from those they disagree with. To find someone who disagrees with you to say something is rare and good.


I have read a lot of R.C. Sproul books and articles and listen to a lot of his talks. ...".

If want to truly understand and fairly represent the views of those you disagree with, it is good to hear what they have to say.

...you did... without getting direct permission from that Reformed brother?

It is not considered unethical or unreasonable to use something someone says so long as you do not misuse it. If you read all that Wilson said or just an excerpt of what he said, it is obvious I used what he said properly.

Nothing I did was nefarious. You have to come up with your own definition of nefarious to say it was nefarious of me to use the quote from Doug Wilson. In Christ, George



















































So hearsay was all you needed to publish his remarks on the jacket of your book?

Doesn't that look a bit odd to even a novice like me that you would do that? The way I am sensing it is your manners are wanting and maybe, just maybe, a little bit nefarious?

This is also an indication that these brothers in here, three of them counting might just have a cause to question your ways would it not? Or not?

george said...

Dear Go Share

Suppose I said why don't you just admit you kicked your dog? Perhaps the reason you will not admit to such a thing is that you did not do such a thing. I suspect that if you are accused of anything that some Calvinists say you are guilty of, the only way you can be exonerated is by confessing what you are accused of. Have you ever been accused of something you did not do? Is it your practice to admit to it anyway. Is this a difficult concept. In Christ, George

natamllc said...

George,

doubtless indeed?

You say this:

"If want to truly understand and fairly represent the views of those you disagree with, it is good to hear what they have to say.

I presume this is a tacit admission of the double standard you are applying in this instance?

Agreed?

Doubtful!

Prince Asbel said...

So basically the only relevant flaw in my recital of your story is that you received the information fourth-hand rather than third-hand. Fine, I can accept that, because A) I do care about the facts, and B) it only makes my point even clearer that your own purported information is shoddy, yet you're more content with that rather than just calling Douglas Wilson yourself. Your incredibility continues to grow.

To people in general who are reading- this is George Bryson's tactic. When faced with proof of dishonesty, simply ignore answering the tough statements. See, if someone were to challenge me by saying I can't prove a word I say, what do I do? I offer proof (especially if they have proof of their own accusation), or I can admit that I'm making a claim that has no proof. George Bryson can't do the first, and he won't do the latter. Oh, he'll repeat the very same story someone just pointed out is completely unsupported by any facts and then dismiss his critics as those silly Calvinists, who never want to face the facts.

Um, George, as far as that quote is concerned, all you've ever delivered is hearsay, not facts! Nobody has any reason to believe your purported story, so your record remains as stained as it ever has been.

Tom Chantry said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tom Chantry said...

Not that I actually believe “George” is as obtuse as he pretends, but let’s try to put this in clearer focus.

George, you said this: What is missing is that this was all about White's answer which was "yes" to me (sic) question. That is all I am saying he admitted to.

But you see, quoting someone as saying, “yes, that’s what I believe…” may be accurate, but when you place that quote after a statement that misrepresents the question being answered, you lie.

Let’s say you were having a discussion with an atheist that goes something like this:

Atheist: “George, are you telling me that you believe in the ascension of Jesus? That he was caught up on the clouds?”

George: “Yes, that’s what I believe.”


Now, the atheist is a skeptic, and to him it sounds implausible. In fact, he thinks that Jesus being “caught up on the clouds” sounds just a tad like alien abduction. So he publishes the debate in a book and it looks like this:

Atheist: “George, are you telling me that you believe in the abduction of Jesus by Aliens? That he was beamed up to the mother ship?”

George: “Yes, that’s what I believe.”


Now George, you may not claim that the atheist misrepresented you in any way, OK? Because the only issue here is your answer, which was yes to his question. Or George, is it just possible that to rephrase the question placed to you in terms which were never used - terms which are in fact in no way representative of your belief, even though they seem similar to the ignorant atheist - makes the repetition of your answer nothing but a lie? Because, you know, you did not say “Yes, that’s what I believe,” in answer to that question?

James White said, “Yes, and here's why I believe that.” True. But he was not responding to the proposition, “Calvinists believe that God is an evil potentate who causes sin and tyrannically damns people for no good reason causes babies to be raped.”

But again, I don’t think you’re really so obtuse that you don’t understand that. Natamllc has you pegged perfectly, I suspect.

otrmin said...

George,

The problem is that the whole context of the discussion was completely left out of what you said. James White has the clip available for listening.

In the context of the discussion, you were dealing with the issue of theodicy. The simple fact of the matter is, if you are a theist, you have to have God having some relationship to evil. Dr. White pointed out that, if you believe in free will, but you believe that God has exhaustive foreknowledge, then he foreknew that, if he created this individual, they were going to use their free will to rape this child. The question then becomes "why did he create this person if he knew that they would rape this child?"

The issue you were discussing was also the issue of purpose. In the above scenario, although God foreknew that the rape was going to happen, and yet created anyway, there was no purpose; the evil is totally meaningless in the system you are proposing. Hence, Dr. White was pointing out that 1. Any theistic system has the exact same problem you were trying to bring against Dr. White and 2. Only Calvinism can provide purpose and meaning to evil in the world. I would say that both of these things would have needed to be said if you were going to fairly represent the conversation you had on BAM.

God Bless,
Adam

Turretinfan said...

George:

Two questions for you:

1) Do you think Dr. White admitted this: "Calvinists believe that God is an evil potentate who causes sin and tyrannically damns people for no good reason causes babies to be raped"?

2) Do you think that Calvinists believe that God is an evil potentate who causes sin and tyrannically damns people for no good reason causes babies to be raped?

The reason I ask is because Dr. White admitted no such thing and Calvinists believe no such thing.

-TurretinFan

Rich Pierce said...

It seems to me that as long as the admonition comes from the Reformed camp, Mr. Bryson will not accept it as he is unable to divorce it from the debate itself.

My suggestion is to show this information to everyone that you know at Calvary Chapel and ask that they show it to their leadership. Maybe George will retract this "yellow journalism" under the pressure from his own camp.

Doctrinal positions aside, what George did here was dishonest and beneath the standards of the conduct of minister, period.

If there is any "discipline" left within the walls of Calvary Chapel I call on their leadership to employ it here.

ChaferDTS said...

"It seems to me that as long as the admonition comes from the Reformed camp, Mr. Bryson will not accept it as he is unable to divorce it from the debate itself."

I believe you are right with that. I pointed out that while I am Calvinistic that I am also a dispensationalist. I was hoping that he would ease up and maybe come around. Calvery Chapel are to my knowledge are dispensational. Since I am dispensational I hoped that I might be able to reach out to him and state he was very wrong in what he did to Dr. James White. So that he would have someone from the " dispensational camp " pointing out his error. I think maybe someone from The Master's Seminary can do a book review of George Bryson's book and point out the errors in it and expose it in their Journal. I think that Dr. James White should contact Dr. John Mac Arthur or Phil Johnson about that. Takecare and God bless.

Steve Noel said...

George,

I am a Pentecostal and an Arminian. Two theological positions that Dr. White does not quite appreciate :). I have read through the comments on this thread as well as listened to Dr. White's webcast on this and read his blog post on it.

What I do not see here is you taking responsibility for what you published in your book. Why did you go to some blog post from a lady named Barb in order to give a loose paraphrase of what was said during the BAM broadcast? You were there! It would have been much better if you had simply posted the transcript of what was said like was done at the beginning of this blog post by TurretinFan. Especially since this has been picked up and spread further by Micah Coate. I would ask you to take responsibility for this misinformation since it is through your book that it has been made popular. I encourage you to stick to direct quotes (I really appreciated all the direct quotes from Calvinists in your book The Five Points of Calvinism). Surely you know after many years engaging in these topics that there are many nuances and that the possibility for misunderstanding is high. I am not here out to judge or condemn you. I do not agree with the way that many (including, at times, Dr. White, in my opinion) become sarcastic and mocking in tone. I know that you also have dealt with lies and libel against your name, character, and beliefs from "anti-non-Calvinists".

I pray that you would receive this post in the spirit in which it is intended.

Your brother in Christ,

Steve Noel

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

This comment will offer general and specific discussion about the "Expectation of Repentance." (Or the Expectation of an Apology. Or the Expectation of a Confession of Error or Wrongdoing.)

"Your non-Reformed brother in Christ, George

In Christ, your non-Calvinist brother-George

In Christ, George"


Q: Is it reasonable to have an expectation of repentance from George Bryson?

(a) In this bystander juror's mind, the charges have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

(b) George Bryson has stated repeatedly that he is "in Christ."

Given both (a) and (b) it seems reasonable for Christian brothers and sisters to expect repentance from George to acknowledge his wrongdoing. This acknowledgment would make amends and establish a base from which more true reconciliation can occur and grow.

Having said all that, I personally don't expect an apology or repentance from Mr. George Bryson for what he has done to Mr. James White! I don't know why, but I just don't expect it. I don't mind other people calling for an apology or a retraction, and I can certainly see and understand why such calls are justified, but I myself don't expect George to apologize.

Turning to the general. The political season has started. Particularly the 2012 presidential primaries. A key aspect is image. Related to image is damage control. Now say that I'm a spin doctor for a candidate. And my candidate is damaged and being damaged for some past incident. The candidate has 2 choices:

(#1) Deny the charge. Deny the validity of the accusation. Staunchly claim the invalidity of the accusation. Or to say there was a gross misunderstanding of the parties involved. Blunt and mute the damages through ardent denial.

(#2) Own up to it and admit the error. Know that the possibility exists that the detractors may further use the apology to make other statements. But knowing that while that may happen, the good and honest thing to do is to own up to past misdeeds.

What should the candidate and his spin doctor do?

--------

I don't know. But given George Bryson's comments on this thread he has already done (#1). Is it too late to do (#2)?

I don't think so, but maybe he does.

natamllc said...

Well, George, are you done with your time out?

I wrote this, implying something about you:

"...The way I am sensing it is your manners are wanting and maybe, just maybe, a little bit nefarious?"

You took those very words and worked them through your mental filters and implied in here I said this, these are your exact words:

"Nothing I did was nefarious. You have to come up with your own definition of nefarious to say it was nefarious of me to use the quote from Doug Wilson. In Christ, George"

No, I wasn't saying that.

So, George, are you saying I was?

george said...

It is no secret that I am being accused of lying and libel etc. I will not repeat or enumerate them here. A lot of Calvinist evidenlly need something to do so they will repeat these accusation for White and others who feel wrong, picked on maligned, persecuted etc.

Thanks To James White and his website there are are some things you can be certain James White is not accusing George of. According to James White:

"George Bryson never said the words attributed to him in the “paraphrase.” I never said the words attributed to me in the “paraphrase.” The whole reason it was called a paraphrase is because it was a summary statement of what the person [Calvinist John Rabe] heard listening on the Internet."

In Christ, George

george said...

Dear Mr. Noel

I wrote the book The Dark Side of Calvinism and thought that everyone knew that the writer of a book takes responsibility for what he writes and allows in his book. Of course, no one who writes a book against something as I did in the Dark Side of Calvinism takes responsibility for what others say. I thought everyone knew this. Sorry if you did not know this. In Christ, George

Turretinfan said...

George:

Why don't you answer the questions I posed?


-TurretinFan

Lockheed said...

Mr. Bryson,

Since it is apparent you can neither defend your position nor spell. Let me help you with one of those:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Turretin

Perhaps you might learn something about this thing called church history.

otrmin said...

George,

It is no secret that I am being accused of lying and libel etc. I will not repeat or enumerate them here. A lot of Calvinist evidenlly need something to do so they will repeat these accusation for White and others who feel wrong, picked on maligned, persecuted etc.

George, in case you haven't noticed, you have Arminians saying that what you did in ripping this quote third hand from a blog was dishonest. It is not just the Calvinists who have been on you for this. Note that there has been at least one on this blog [and probably many more if I searched the internet] Arminians who have said that this is just wrong.

George, I just finished with my coursework at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School for a Masters in Old Testament and Semitic Languages. I was taught there that you show respect by going to original sources when you can. I did a paper on the Annuls of Sennacherib, and I made sure I got hold of drawings of the original cuneiform text. You were there in the studio, and you have access to this debate. So, why did you go back to a paraphrase, and one that badly misrepresents the situation at that?

Also, George, at TEDS, this never became the issue that you and Coate have raised it to. Arminians and Calvinists lived for an entire school year together without any of the kind of language that is found in the rhetoric that you and Coate use. It is grossly unfair to engage in this kind of behavior towards fellow Christians. Better yet, is grossly unfair to engage in this kind of behavior towards non-Christians. If we truly do follow Jesus Christ who is the truth, we should seek to present the truth, even regarding those with whom we disagree.

God Bless,
Adam

natamllc said...

George,

again, here are your words so no obfuscation about them then, ok?

"Of course, no one who writes a book against something as I did in the Dark Side of Calvinism takes responsibility for what others say. I thought everyone knew this."

Review my citations of your words above in each of my comments and tell me if my citations are citations of other than your own words?

If my citations are "only" words of yours, would you kindly respond to them then, ok?

If not, why not?

The "pure" irony here, if I might say so is most of the folks commenting in here believe about their condition before God is one of total depravity.

Why is this so important to understand?

Because none of us and I dare say, even Dr. White adheres, is putting ourselves out as anything more than being totally depraved in our condition before one another and before God.

We are equals in here when it comes to this reality.

As you, each of us claims total dependency on the equitable deeds of our Savior; so, for me, at least, the frustration I am having with your reluctance to respond to all of our questions makes your reluctance more telling.

What cause is holding you back, for instance, in not answering Turretinfan's simplified questions? I mean, after all, this is his blog and he hasn't been rude or disrespectful to you. Don't you have any sense of responsibility as you say you have in those words cited in this particular comment to at least answer his questions?

I would say that you have grown more comfortable with justifying yourself than living in obedience to the Faith once delivered to the Saints so as to come to repentance and accept forgiveness from men of God who really honestly want to forgive you!

Ecc 7:20 Surely there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins.


...

Rom 16:25 Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages
Rom 16:26 but has now been disclosed and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith--
Rom 16:27 to the only wise God be glory forevermore through Jesus Christ! Amen.

natamllc said...

George,

one thing more and then I will hold my peace.

This is in the interest of peacemaking.

This is in the interest of giving the Lord Glory by way of what follows.

I will speculate that you are thinking a certain way now about the situation you find yourself in because of the various exchanges you have had with us in here?

What is that way is not what is utmost here.

What is utmost though, in light of the present circumstance we all find ourselves in now, is the Way of the Lord Jesus Christ, His Truth and His Life prevailing triumphantly between all of us.

Here's the point and I would ask you to weigh heavily upon these verses with regard to it?

Mat 6:14 For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you,
Mat 6:15 but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

...

Mat 18:15 "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.
Mat 18:16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses.
Mat 18:17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.


I am sure, if you are sincerely taking the time to read this, you are realizing the rudimentary nature of is being expressed?

These verses are just as potent and powerful now as they were the first day you were thrilled by them reading them the first time? A lot of water has passed under the bridge since then.

These verses are the glue that "makes" the Brotherhood and the Elect Family of God on earth as She is in Heaven.

These are the verses that separate the men from the boys.

Now, I believe, without much vitriol if any at all, you have been found wanting by a few men of God who have put their thoughts into words in here expressing their disdain for what you have done.

Won't you agree that it is now time for you to acknowledge the charges against you and reconcile?

If you are a "brother" in Christ, as you claim you are at the end every one of your comments in here, and those of us making our comments in here are claiming as much as well, it does seem apparent there is some blockage within your being preventing you from accepting your due responsibility for these matters that have been clearly established by more than one or two "brothers" in Christ against you in here. And surely you realize this is only one watering hole where the water is flowing?

What do you say? Do you want forgiveness? Or, do you want God's Hand of disfavor upon you now?

I don't know you personally. I may have met you in a Church service before? I just don't recall it if I had?

But what I do hold to and with some vigor, to my own detriment at times, is the Word of God and those verses above and these I will share next that seems to me verses that you will not be able to set aside seeing they open up an understanding to us all the power of Christ Himself, He, who we swear our allegiance too, He, who did lay His Life down for common good:

Php 3:20 But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ,
Php 3:21 who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself.


Everyone in here is found wanting, now; you, wanting, in the sense of having committed an offense against our brother in Christ and the rest of us wanting to see reconciliation between us and you and him.

Tommy said...

I really prefer to not see bushes be beaten around. What have they done? Honestly, what kind of destructive mind would want to beat around the bush?

Seeing this to be the right way of treating bushes fairly, I would really like to see a straight transaction between TurretinFan and Mr. Bryson. I see TurretinFan doing this, by asking questions on topic, but I don't see this coming from Mr. Bryson. In fact, what I see is anytime TF gets direct, George starts replying to other mini-threads. It's exactly what happened with his exchange with White. They demanded straight answers, and yet will only answer the questions he himself poses. Please answer TurretinFan in a straight, Biblical way Mr. Bryson, with the questions he asked you. This is all he has been asking you for the past several posts, and yet you refuse to answer him.

Tim Bushong said...

"This is all he has been asking you for the past several posts, and yet you refuse to answer him."

I think it's because-

a) Those 2 questions get at the very heart of this matter-

B) If his answer is "yes", he knows that it can be proven that he's incorrect, and-

c) If his answer is "no", then his veneer is gone- the jig is up.

Prince Asbel said...

For the record, I called into The Dividing Line today and discussed my exchange with George that I've been having on this article. It's already available for download on the aomin blog, and my call starts at 01:07:11 of the podcast.

George, feel free to call into that program and counter what I said. James White would totally let you on and say whatever you wanted to say, and you would have no shortage of people eager to hear your refutation. If the truth is on your side, have the courage of your convictions and make your stand on the public forum of The Dividing Line.

Truthseeker said...

George,

Even though you were quoting someone else I wouldn't call that a "loose paraphrase," I would call it a "caricaturaphrase," whether it was a calvinist saying this or otherwise.

Wouldn't you agree?

The problem is that you go on in your book talking about the "admission of White" and that "White is only admitting what should be obvious to all Calvinists" as if the caricaturaphrase is what the admission was in response to.

This is very misleading to the readers of your book!

It would do you well to answer TurretinFan's questions to clear the fog which for some reason you don't seem to want to have lifted.

Perhaps Tim Bushong in correct?

berean1

stan schmunk said...

George,

You have no need to apologize to anyone. I heard the interview and played it several times to be sure. White's answer was the most shocking thing I've heard from a supposed Christian in my 66 years. And I take it personally because I've been involved in the rescue and rehabilitation of under-aged sex-slaves (some as young as 7) for 15 years. So, this isn't hypothetical to me. Most of them are beaten before being offered to men up to 10 times a night. If they're really beautiful they're offered for men to rent for $600+ a week. Also, if they're really beautiful they're sewn up and offered as virgins again. And God decreed this? You Calvinists go ahead and defend White if you want. For me, I have a different opinion of a man, who says God decrees every rape of these special young ladies and never mentioned Satan or Jesus' love for little children in his reply. And a man, who continually tries to deconstruct John 3:16 and limit the love of God. Only one person can be behind this. Actually I'm glad White answered this way as it's now out in the open for every one to see. You have no excuse now. I've Emailed him about this without reply. I'd love to debate him on this issue in Cambodia.

Matt Paul said...

So Stan, I imagine your answer to the question is just so much better than Dr. White's, right? I mean, it's so much more comforting to know that God has his hands off the wheel and lets rape happen because he's so in love with the rapist getting his desires fulfilled that he'll let women fall by the way-side in the name of honoring the rapist's free will. *Gasp* How shocking! Horrifying!... At this point I could quote back every remark you just made, call you a follower of Satan, and so on and so forth, but the point is clearly made. Neither of our answers will necessarily be comforting to everyone at anytime, but please, don't put on this show of moral indignation as if by doing so you've absolved yourself of being accused of having a similarly controversial answer to the problem of child rape. It doesn't impress any Calvinists, and it certainly does nothing to justify George Bryson being a liar.

stan.schmunk said...

The last of my worries is impressing Calvinists. Anyone who says that God decrees every evil act does not know God. Notice that Job never received an answer to his questions or complaints. God showed him His greatness and Job knew enough to shut his mouth. I'm not obligated to say why it is that God permits evil but I'm very obligated to speak out when someone arrogantly claims that God decrees the rape of every young girl, etc. Let me ask you, do you believe that God decrees every young girl's rape? Does Jesus love the little children of the world? Are your kids allowed to sing 'Jesus Loves Me'? If something horrible like rape or sodomy happened to your wife or kids would you say that God decreed it?This goes way past heresy or apostasy. It reaches at least to blasphemy. BTW, Bryson's not a liar. He's man enough to wrestle with an unanswerable question. And he's wise enough to let God be God.

stan schmunk said...

Did you notice that Mr. White never mentioned Satan or the fact that Jesus loved the little children and warned what would happen to those who offended them?

stan schmunk said...

And it would all be thrown out. Anyone who listened to the tape knows exactly what Mr. White said and exactly what he meant.

turretinfan said...

Stan:

Your theology is emotional, not Biblical.

But what is sad for you is that you have no answers, just accusations.

As for Job, Job attributed the loss of his children to the Lord, and the Bible tells us he did not charge God rashly.

Your emotions are high, but your Biblical theology is low.

Here's my prescription for you: read more Bible. See what God decreed for the people of Israel. See what God decreed for the people of Canaan before them! Look at what God did to all the firstborn children of Egypt.

Your emotions are wrong, but the Bible is right.

-TurretinFan

Matt Paul said...

Let me ask you, do you believe that God decrees every young girl's rape?

Yes he did. Unlike your God my God isn't purposefully letting women fall prey to rapists because he's so obsessed with rapists being able to exercise their free will.

Does Jesus love the little children of the world?

Does your God love them more than he loves the rapists of the world? Evidently not, because as a God who places free will on the top of his priority list, he always loves the perpetrators far more than he loves their victims.

Are your kids allowed to sing 'Jesus Loves Me'?

They would be if I had any.

If something horrible like rape or sodomy happened to your wife or kids would you say that God decreed it?

If by that you mean I'd be eagerly awaiting the first opportunity to point out to my traumatized wife and kids that what they just went through was decreed by God, of course not. The idea that what happened necessarily had to happen is never pleasing to victims of rape or any other act of violence. However, when it came down to explaining why it did have to happen, I'll be able to tell my wife that it wasn't because she was less important than her rapists free will, I.E. God loved the rapist more than her. That is, unfortunately, the answer YOU have to give when all is said and done. We all have to give an answer of some kind, and at least we have an answer that doesn't make the victim feel less important than the perpetrator's free will. That is your embarrassing dilemma, the very nature of which explains your refusal to declare your answer on your own.

BTW, Bryson's not a liar.

He most certainly is a liar and he knows it. The fact that you commiserate with his feelings towards Calvinism doesn't change that fact.

He's man enough to wrestle with an unanswerable question. And he's wise enough to let God be God.

Maybe you've missed the boat here, but George Bryson doesn't think it's an unanswerable question. His answers are nonsensical and unbiblical, but unlike you, he at least tries to give one. On that note he's definitely more manly than you are since you don't have the courage to give one. What a big help you must have been to those rape victims you claim to have helped rehabilitate when they couldn't trust you to have the guts to answer the most basic question reeling in their minds, "Why?"

stan schmunk said...

Don't patronize me. I know more theology than you. I wrestled with all these issues in the 70s and 80s while in bible college and in the pastorate. I know all of your arguments and verses better than you. One of the main arguments against Calvinism since its existence is that it makes God the author of sin. I had always had a favorable impression of Calvinism although I never accepted the U and the L I had always seen that the logical conclusion to Calvinism might be that God is the author of evil but I never heard it expressed as White did. My emotions are right, not wrong. This is the charge that White always levels against his critics, that they're too emotional or tied to tradition. I agree that the Bible is right but it NEVER says that God decrees every evil deed. Critiquing me for my emotions says something very bad about you.. I have long-time Calvinist friends, who are like you. Thankfully, most Calvinists aren't like you or White and 99.9% of the Christians in the world would recoil in horror if they heard what White said. I don't know anything about you but you have no idea how serious this issue is in light of a holy God. What you are saying about God is maybe the most serious charge that can be leveled against Him. You need to be very careful.

stan schmunk said...

Your answers are irrational and betray a lack of knowledge. You're not competent enough to discuss this issue. You do not seem to know what you're talking about and you're assigning beliefs to me that I don't have. You need to calm down and re-think this. You need to ask yourself if you're really in the faith. I'm serious. BTW, if you're a real TULIP guy you can't tell your kids that Jesus loves them and you better not let them sing 'Jesus Loves Me' because you don't know if He does or not. You've crossed the line with your comment about my 'guts' in talking with the rescued girls. What do you want me to say, 'God may or may not love you. He may or may not have sent Christ to die for you. But you can be sure of one thing, that God decreed each and every time that you were raped so that it would have purpose.' That's 'another gospel', my friend, and you know what Paul said about those who preach another gospel. You almost sound like you're in a cult. You need to run away from these folks as fast as you can.

turretinfan said...

If your emotions were right, you might over the past 30 years have actually developed something more than them to support them. As you haven't it's reasonable for us to conclude that it is just your emotions.

turretinfan said...

It's not "these folks" that are the problem for you, Stan. It is the Bible.

turretinfan said...

The misrepresentation by Bryson is pretty clear and pretty heinous.

turretinfan said...

Stan: Get real. Satan can't do anything if God does not permit him. As for Jesus warning about what happens to those who offend children, both Dr. White and his opponent agree on that. Debaters tend not to spend their time dwelling on the points that they have in common.

Matt Paul said...

Your answers are irrational and betray a lack of knowledge. You're not competent enough to discuss this issue. You do not seem to know what you're talking about

This is the sinking ship of the person who has lost the argument. Just insult your opponent like the punk kid swears blue streaks at people he can't push around. Make yourself look like you've won by being unpleasant.

and you're assigning beliefs to me that I don't have.

Yeah, right. Of course, it's perfectly within your power to actually say what you believe, but then you'd actually have to justify yourself rather than play a one-sided blame game with the Calvinists. Too much to expect from Stan Schmunk.

You need to calm down and re-think this.

That's an ironic piece of advice coming from you.

BTW, if you're a real TULIP guy you can't tell your kids that Jesus loves them and you better not let them sing 'Jesus Loves Me' because you don't know if He does or not.

I'm not able to tell anybody Jesus loves them, yes, but I'm not in any position to tell anyone not to worship him.

You've crossed the line with your comment about my 'guts' in talking with the rescued girls.

Get over yourself, Stan. You've already said that people like me, Turretinfan, and James White are following Satan. If you can dish it out, then you better be able to take it.

What do you want me to say, 'God may or may not love you. He may or may not have sent Christ to die for you. But you can be sure of one thing, that God decreed each and every time that you were raped so that it would have purpose.'

I wouldn't say that, of course, as you well know since I answered this question previously. But, since you don't have anything better, why should I feel bad about saying that? What do YOU expect me to say? God loves you and died for you. You're still probably going to hell, and God loves your rapist's ability to exercise free will so much that you were a necessary casualty. But be happy, because God let him rape you in the name of free will. See, you're not the only person who can spew emotional rhetoric, but as for me, I at least have an answer that gives me, Natamllcs, and other people hope that what happened to them didn't happen in vain.

You almost sound like you're in a cult. You need to run away from these folks as fast as you can.

To where, Stan? To someone like you, too afraid to answer basic questions about what to believe?

stan schmunk said...

Wow! Do you have any idea what you just said? How do you know that you're a Christian? How do you know that God loves you? What do you say when you witness to them? You're believing a FALSE gospel.

stan schmunk said...

John 3:16-17 You are making the claim and foolishly boasting that God DECREES every evil act. The god you are promoting is NOT the God of the Bible. I won't get into a proof-texting war with you.

stan schmunk said...

Heinous? God decreed it! How can it be heinous? You should be blessing God that Bryson said something heinous.

stan schmunk said...

It is absolutely clear that God 'allows' suffering. But White even mocks that. He is saying that God DECREED it. That is the difference. The Bible NEVER says that God decrees every evil act. White's conclusion is the result of human logic being applied to certain passages that indicate that God caused certain OT calamities that included children. This application of human logic leads to the conclusion that God's sovereignty means that He DECREED every evil act. This makes God the author of sin. This is the worst charge that can be leveled at God and comes straight from Satan's heart as does the attempt to re-interpret John 3:16. I'm very happy to discuss this with you. The answer to the question, 'How can a good, loving God allow evil?' is at least as old as Job but God and scripture NEVER say that He decrees every evil act. Job answered with a prophetic reference to Rom. 8: 28, which is 150% true. There is mystery in the relationship between God and Satan and evil and we have to let that mystery be, which can only be done by faith. Do you believe that every abortion is decreed by God? Every murder? Do you believe that ALL sin is DECREED by God? I really appreciate your honesty and experience more than you might know. But did God DECREE what happened to you or just allow it or...? And the references to the rapists' free will confuse me. If we say that God decreed that the Cambodian rapists rape those little ones we have crossed the line. Blessing God in light of our suffering is NOT the same as saying that God decrees every evil act and has Satan or people carry it out. BTW, what exactly is it that Bryson said or wrote that is getting all of you so fired up? Did he commit the unpardonable sin or something? Aren't we supposed to forgive 70 x 7? Do you see the irony in attacking him so viciously while defending someone, who says that God decrees every evil act and then boasts about it?

stan schmunk said...

BTW, the verses from I Peter are wonderful and comforting but they are addressed to folks who are being persecuted as Christians. They say nothing about God decreeing every evil deed.

turretinfan said...

What about God decreeing any evil deed? Like the crucifixion of Christ or the Babylonian captivity, for example. Doesn't that sink your objection?

turretinfan said...

Stan:

Let me try to help you understand why the rapists' free will gets brought up. There are three options:
1) God doesn't care whether the rapist rapes or not;
2) God doesn't want the rapist to rape; or
3) God does want the rapist to rape.

If you select (2), which I think you would, then you have a problem, because the rape occurs. Why is that a problem?

Well, it is a problem because we know that people generally act according to their desires. So, again, there are three options:

1) God is unable to prevent the rape;
2) God is able to to prevent the rape, but refuses to do so.

We can throw out (1). After all, it is trivial for God to take action to stop the rape from occurring. God strike the rapist blind, give him a temporary paralysis, strengthen the victim against him, send an angel to protect the victim, or even outright kill him by any way God likes, including have a meteor come down from the sky and strike him dead.

But if (2) is correct, then that seems to conflict with the idea that God doesn't want the rapist to rape. After all, it seems not to make sense to say that God doesn't want X to happen, but will not lift a finger to prevent X from happening.

When it comes to salvation, people frequently say that God doesn't save everyone whom God wants to save, because God wants to honor the free will of the person.

If we were to apply that same rationale here, one ends up with the absurd result of God caring more about the free will of the rapist than about the victim.

The better answer is that God actually does want the crime to occur, and that God has some greater good in mind. We don't know what it is. In the case of Joseph's enslavement, it was the preservation of the Israelites. In the case of Christ's crucifixion, it was the salvation of the elect. But what about the cases you've identified? Who knows!

turretinfan said...

Maybe the real problem is that you don't understand what it means for God to decree something. When God decrees that some sin will occur, it does not remove the guilt of the sinner.

We can bless God for the extremely mild persecution meted out by folks like Bryson, but we can also call it sin. That's because both things are true: God decreed it, but George did it.

turretinfan said...

You would lose such a war, because the Bible is not on your side. John 3:16-17, for example, actually teaches Calvinism. It's one of the go-to verses for the doctrine of particular redemption.

turretinfan said...

What was the gospel that Jesus preached, Stan?

Adsf said...

I think Jesus would be as emotional as Stan is, regarding people who believe God is the author of sin or that God decrees every evil deed. Because in His day religious people had changed the nature of God's house of prayer to make it a den of thieves. Here we have an even greater evil namely that the nature of God Himself nature is changed making Him the Cause of all evil.

turretinfan said...

Where is your argument for the accusation that saying God decreed all things means God is "the Cause of all evil," and then where is your Biblical argument for saying that is wrong? You see, it is easy to be emotional. It is harder to be Biblical. Be Biblical.

Adsf said...

Doesn't "all things" include "all evil"? Please explain why not? Or are you going to argue also that "the world" in Jn 3:16 does not include certain people?

But you want to be Biblical, right? So, where does it say that "God decreed all things"? Chapter and verse please.

turretinfan said...

No, I was waiting for your argument for your accusation.

Are you under the misapprehension that "Decree X" means "Cause X"? If so, that would explain your mistaken comments.

Adsf said...

Well tell us: can anything be caused if it's not decreed?

turretinfan said...

How about you answer my question about whether you think that "Decree" and "Cause" mean the same thing. Otherwise, my answer to your question is likely to be misunderstood.

Adsf said...

Well, apparently you don't want to answer my questions. But I must have misunderstood you if you think that some things can be caused and not decreed. My bad, or what is it?

turretinfan said...

So, basically, you do not understand the difference between "decree" and "cause" and yet you want me to answer your question which uses both of those words. #genius

Adsf said...

I see that you don't want to (or perhaps can't) answer my questions. What do you mean by #genius?

turretinfan said...

I asked you first.

Until you give your answer, feel free to go bother another blog. But please don't continue commenting here.

Adsf said...

Decree means an order, a command. You seemed to say that God ordered the rape of young girls in Cambodia, so that if God hadn't ordered it, it wouldn't have happened, regardless of intermediary causes, like the actual perpetrators.

stan schmunk said...

It actually doesn't and I could probably line up thousands of scholars who know 'the Greek' who disagree with you. You are operating under a pre-supposition, which demands that you torture John 3:16-17 to make them fit.

stan schmunk said...

That is such tortured and irrational reasoning. God decrees sin and the sinner is still held guilty. I certainly agree with the last part but you're still saying that God decrees that sin will occur?

stan schmunk said...

That is a lie from hell. You are making God to be the author of sin. You are more lost than the pagan in the deepest jungle. At least I cared enough to warn you. You and White are fooling yourselves if you think you're part of the elect. You're no such thing.

Natamllc said...

Stan,

Whether it is an abortion, (a murder of the unborn living agent of two human beings); the rape and murder of either sex, (I consider what happened to me on the part of the perpetrator an evil deed/rape), I equally adhere to this verse when it comes to my part of this equation as the 8 year old boy, deceived, [ Pro 26:2 Like a sparrow in its flitting, like a swallow in its flying, a curse that is causeless does not alight.] ; a thief stealing, adultery; blaspheme or whatever the evil darkness is that is done, it first could not exist so it could be done unless God created it or allowed a creature to create it. In this sense, whether you want to ascribe it as human logic, it nevertheless has its primary cause in God who is the Creator of all things. All things exist and have their being from God. All sin is of God. This in no way teaches that God "sins". God cannot sin. God is Light. God created "light", remember?

Having been over in that part of the world I take a very different position than you as to why little girls and boys in Cambodia are being raped.

I believe TF pegged it well for you that you are far too emotionally attached to this subject matter to be able to say "God is the author of sin". He is. This in no way says, implies or teaches that God is evil. He allows evil. Evil would not exist but for God. It is for a far greater purpose, the existence of evil and evil deeds being allowed in this world. This centers in an Eternal Purpose as the Apostle Paul describes it in Eph. 3:8-12.

Natamllc said...

Well said, TF. I adhere!!

turretinfan said...

I know what I mean when I say (as I do) that God is not the author of sin. What do you mean by it? Why is saying "God is the author of sin," wrong in your view?

Claiming that my argument is a "lie from hell" isn't much of a warning.

turretinfan said...

yes

turretinfan said...

No.

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

Stan Schmunk,

Did God create Satan?

GibbyD said...

no, He created Lucifer , "chief cherub that covereth" . He fell and was cast out of Heaven when pride was found in him. He became satan .

GibbyD said...

God did not program men not to be able to respond to and believe The Gospel and then command them to respond to and believe The Gospel . Men are not computers or robots . When God created man , he made him a genuine person with intellect , sensibility and free will . If man did not have INDEPENDENT free will , They would not be real genuine persons but rather just part of God and not separate and real persons. . Man fell and became dead in trespasses and sins , this is true. The answer to this is The Power of God , THE GOSPEL. The Gospel is the only thing that can awaken spiritually dead men to life when they hear the Gospel , think about it in their mind and then "obey from the heart that form of doctrine delivered unto them " . ( Romans 6:17)KJB. . The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation ..." ( Romans 1:16)KJB. TO ANYONE (WHOSOEVER) will believe . That means whoever wants it . There is a mystery though why not everyone seems to want it . It is not though that they were programmed that way .