What did you think of the debate between White and Bryson tonight on the Bible Answer Man radio program? I didn't get to hear but a little after the 30-minute break and before the station went off the air due to FCC regulations. However, I was disappointed in White. Hopefully, he redeemed himself during the rest of the program. In what I heard, Bryson cleaned White's clock over the author of evil. White would not deny that God was the author of evil, but kept to his decree beliefs. James makes perfectly clear that God is not the author of evil. IMO, White made calvinism look bad. I really have no first-hand knowledge of him, but others in the Reformed camp speak highly of him.
Last edited by John_C; Tue Dec 16, 20037:03 PM.
John Chaney
"having been firmly rooted and now being built up in Him and established in your faith . . ."Colossians 2:7
John<br><br>I too was a little frustrated with the way the debate went (from what I heard), however what I noticed is that every time James tried to steer the conversation towards Scripture and asked Bryson what a passage meant. Bryson had some way to steer the conversation away from James' points. For instance in response to a question that James asked, Bryson would say something like "James is God the author of evil?" Hence he never actually answers the question. Bryson does this in such a cleaver way that it seems that James is all wet. <br>James is a little bit at a disadvantage here because if he can't make his points clear to the listeners, there is no way that he can win the debate. One major point of course is the fact that unless James is able to establish the fact of man’s inherent sin nature and all that goes along with that, then nothing he can say after that will make any sense.<br><br>One of my favorite Scripture verses is Romans 8:28 "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are called according to his purpose.” It is clear that from this verse and many others (such as 1 Cor. 2:7) that God has a foreordained plan. Even evil such as a child's murder, God ordained it for good, without being the author of sin. <br><br>One of the biggest problems is that when we as humans can't fathom a truth of Scripture such as this, we explain it away and give it a wrong meaning. Or like we as Reformed Christians do, we look at this as a great comfort knowing that no matter what happens to us, God is still in control. <br>We don't have to like all the things in life that happens, but we can be certain of the bottom line.<br>To be honest, my puny mind can not completely wrap my mind around how God can ordain all things and still not be the author of evil. However, the real issue is does Scripture teach that or not? I believe that it does and because of that, I would be foolish to argue against this truth. <br>Those who fight against this doctrine, are actually, though they will not see it, limiting God’s sovereignty to what they can understand with their minds.<br><br>Tom
Yes, Bryson wouldn't let White escape that question because White kept arguiing that God is the author of evil. Instead of explaining God's perfect will from His permissive will in answering the question, White alluded only to the former in his explanations. I don't know whether he accepts the latter. <br><br>A question - is evil a concept outside of sin or is evil a culmination of many sins?
Last edited by John_C; Wed Dec 17, 20035:08 AM.
John Chaney
"having been firmly rooted and now being built up in Him and established in your faith . . ."Colossians 2:7
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]In what I heard, Bryson cleaned White's clock over the author of evil. White would not deny that God was the author of evil, but kept to his decree beliefs. James makes perfectly clear that God is not the author of evil. IMO, White made calvinism look bad. I really have no first-hand knowledge of him, but others in the Reformed camp speak highly of him.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>(Fred) Did we hear the same debate? I was well pleased at how White handled himself and I thought he did a fine job of exposing the unscriptural, philosophical nonsense that Bryson uses to defend his libertarianism. Bryson could not answer Genesis 50, or Acts 4 where the scriptures clearer teach that God ordained sinful men to do his purposes. In fact, I did not hear Bryson once go to the Bible to build a case for his position. He justed parroted the same, re-treaded anti-calvinistic objections that have been answered biblically by men for over half a millennium. When White pointed out that Bryson was yet to offer a reasoned response to Genesis 50, after Bryson went bumbling off onto some other irrelevant point, the hem-hawing by Bryson was classic. What is more, when White pointed out that Bryson's view of God and evil makes evil meaningless, along with making an evil event to be outside of God's control (this being said AFTER Bryson affirmed God's exhaustive foreknowledge and absolute sovereignty), the stunned "no, wait a minute..." response by Bryson just goes to show how he has not thought through the scriptural, let alone the philosophical, implications of his position. A person doesn't need to appeal to the premissive/decretive will arguments to defend this issue. God uses secondary, sinful causes to do his purposes and yet is uncharged with evil. That is classic calvinistic thought articulated by men like Wayne Grudem and Robert Reymond in their systematic theologies. James made a compelling case for compatiblism, and in my opinion, gave a stellar defense for the doctrines of grace. I would encourage you to go to White's Alpha and Omega Ministries and listen to many of his debates that can be downloaded off the internet, or his webcast that can be heard twice a week. I am sure that this Thursday on his webcast, White will be talking about the discusion. You ought to give him a call and run by him your objections. I would be curious to hear his response.<br><br>Fred
"Ah, sitting - the great leveler of men. From the mightest of pharaohs to the lowest of peasants, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?" M. Burns
I would encourage others to listen to it. One interesting footnote. I was speaking earlier this morning with Phil Johnson who spoke with James immediately after they finished taping the remaining episodes to be aired Weds and Thurs afternoon. James related to Phil, that after he had pressed Bryson to give an answer to what he had raised regarding Genesis 50 and Acts 4, that Hank, during the break, rebuked James for invoking those two passages. That is utterly amazing in my mind: The Bible Answer Man wanting James to not use the Bible!? While at the same time, Bryson did not once use scripture to even support his freewill theism.<br>I am sure James will speak about it Thursday evening on his webcast when he returns live. I will be curious to hear his take on the issue.<br><br>Fred
"Ah, sitting - the great leveler of men. From the mightest of pharaohs to the lowest of peasants, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?" M. Burns
John<br><br>"Yes, Bryson wouldn't let White escape that question because White kept arguiing that God is the author of evil."<br><br>Actually, if you heard that you were listening to a different broadcast than I was. White said on more than one occasion that he didn't believe God was the author of evil. He tried to steer Bryson to how that could be, but he was not allowed to do so.<br><br>Tom
Fred<br><br>I agree with you on what you said. <br>If someone was looking at the debate and was careful to look at the matter with an open Bible, then James clearly won the debate.<br>However, if someone was just listening to the mannerisms of the two debaters, Bryson came across as the better debater of the two.<br>Unfortunately, I believe most that hear the debate, will believe Bryson won the debate. He very cleverly made it look like James wasn't sticking to the issues.<br><br>It was also clear that Hank had a huge bias towards Bryson.<br><br>Tom
Stupid me to do so, but I turned on my radio driving home from work and heard a portion of this debate. Hanegraaff had a clear bias, I will agree....but that is no surprise, since he frequently speaks in a derogatory manner of Calvinism in any variety.<br><br>Steve
Argh. Mr. Hanegraaff really likes to twist things around. "Is it true that God creates some people . . . in such a way that they, by their very nature, the way that they're created, cannot respond to the Gospel?" I hope the debate goes well today! It's live at 3:00 p.m. PST.
Kyle
I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
What is a real shame about Hank, is although he has never claimed to be a Calvinist, he used to have a lot of respect for them.<br>Wasn't Dr. Walter Martin a Calvinist?
I dont think he was a Calvinist [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/shrug.gif" alt="shrug" title="shrug[/img]<br><br>All I know about him is that he did not include the Roman Catholic Institute in his book 'Kingdom of the Cults'
