George Bryson and James White

tnelson asked:

Has anyone liston to this debate this week?

I have not heard it, but Pete Freckelton has posted a review of the first couple of days to his blog. He wasn't terribly impressed, to say the least - and if his assessment is accurate, for good reason.

 

I am listening now.

Do finite beings possess an ability to sin?

 

Is this a debate?
Bro. Dallas Eaton

 

The interesting thing to me was that Bryson (correct me if Im wrong)was not focusing on scripture but philosophical and emotional issues that James White offered scripture and exegesis for that he still has not answered. He even answered one of James questions with another question. I think the reason he has not used much scripture is because James has already debated him and Bryson knows that James can answer his question, so Bryson went with emotional arguments.
Anyways, thats my thoughts.
In Christ,
Bobby

 

I got the same impression. This was a lengthy commercial and campaign to smear Calvinism by human emotion and philosophy. Everytime White did attempt to speak his words were portrayed as being beyond the understanding of listeners and opportunity to speak was limited.

Bro. Dallas

 

I haven't heard the debate yet, but I was impressed by his book. I figured it would be nice to have another person represent non-calvinism, since Hunt said so many things that everyone picked apart and used to go way off of the subject. Here Bryson does deal with scriptures, and yes, he does use some philosophical arguments. But then you have to remember that alot of this debate is philosophical speculation anyway (that if God is sovereign, then the lost must have been passed over, etc.). Much of non-calvinist argument is undoing the philosophy used by Calvinists, and therefore emphasizing what is not in scripture, moreso than what is.
For instance, in the article:

"You meant it for evil but God meant it for good". How is this supposed to prove Calvinism? What does it even have to do with the subject? Is this supposed to prove reprobation becasue "God makes them do the evil (for His plan) and then condemns them (holds "responsible") for it"? For one thing, eternal condemnation is not even in the discussion (as with Rom.9). God uses people's evil for His good. God perhaps even ordains an event, and uses a wicked person (who would do it anyway) to carry it out. Nobody denies this. No wonder the discussion diverges from scripture. It is unscriptural proof-texting to begin with! It's White and his side that always tries to emotionally enflame the issue with how "tough" it is (God's "sovereignty", the "Gospel", etc, yet they go beyond what scripture actually teaches, and instead read this into it), so naturally, the other side will respond in an emotional fashion as well.

But it is true that the non-Calvinists do need to improve their arguments, and point out stuff like this instead of going with the emotional argument trap and then allowing themselves to be painted as using only emotional arguments.

 

Funny, I heard the debate and felt that Bryson did very well.

Bottom line:

Calvinist = White was a Great exegetic

Non-Calvinist = Bryson showed the errors of White's exegesis

Calvinist = Where?

Non-Calvinist = Did you even hear the same debate as I did? Maybe you tuned out Bryson because he was given bad reviews.

 

Isn't James White famous for failing to answer basic questions and challenges in debates, and then posting "open letters" accusing his opponent of misrepresenting him?

 

I heard this portion of the broadcast in the van on the way to Wal-Mart with the family. I looked over to my wife and said, "Forget about the rape of a child. What about a worse sin? What about the murder of God's Son?"

Did God cause that?

Yes.

 

Eric B,
I just caught the following:

quote- "But then you have to remember that alot of this debate is philosophical speculation anyway ".

The difference is Bryson starts with Philosophical speculation. White's "Philosophical specualations" on the subject of evil was a view that developed "from" scripture (Gen. 50; Is. 10; Acts 4). That is why White kept trying to go to the scriptures to show why he held the position that he did. Bryson never tried to deal with the verses that White was appealing to.

In Christ,
Bobby

 

It wasn't "developed from" scripture, but rather read into it. Therefore, refutation will be more about what is not in scripture than what is, and is often dominated by a philosophical slant. True, that many often avoid some of the proof-texts, but in Bryson's book, be does go more into the scriptures (don't know if they are all the ones White was using, though).

 

right away Hank starts with a fallacy... the supposed negative critique of Calvinism that "billions of people" will never have the oppurtunity to believe, if Calvinism is true, and billions were not elected from the foundation of the world to be saved... however, since it is manifestly the case that billions of people will have lived and died never hearing the gospel at all, and if one believes that Jesus is indeed the only way to the Father, then it is still the case that billions will have lived and died without having a chance to believe, and this, whether one embraces Arminianism or Calvinism.

well, back to the debate....

 

Eric B,
Hey Bro, you said,

I would just say that you just proved my point. Not only did he say "read the book", but he didn't address in his book the directly relevant passages where Calvinist's derive the topic of that discussion. He wanted to go right to the belief without addressing the core issue of where those beliefs come from. And that my friend are those scriptures that you said you were not sure if he did specifically focus upon. Trust me, he did not because I believe he cannot.

In Christ,
Bobby

P.S. Eric B., If you are interested in this discussion keep an eye on AOMIN.ORG, James Whites webpage for updates of a "possible" debate with Bryson on the Dividing Line. James said something about inviting him on there because on the Bible Answer Man, Bryson kept saying "read the book". White found out that none of the direct passages that he told him to read the book on, are in his book.

 

No, I think you may be thinking of Gerry Matatics.

 

Hello Everyone!

I have listened to the recent discussion between George Bryson and James White on the Bible Answer Man show. Repeatedly, James White asked George Bryson to give explanations for Genesis 50:20, Isaiah 10, and Acts 4:27-28 in light of George's commitment to libertarian free will. George did not do so, but rather deferred to his book The Dark Side of Calvinism when he told James to "read the book." Well, James has finally received a copy of the book, and apparently nowhere does Bryson deal with this in his book. I quote Dr. White...

This saddens me a great deal. George Bryson at best was very mistaken concerning the contents of his book, and at worst was dodging the question in a deceptive manner. The issue is not Calvinism vs. Arminianism, but rather intellectual honesty. For me, a shadow has been cast over the integrity of George Bryson. Perhaps, it is not Calvinism that has a dark side?

Sincerely,

Brian