MySword (Mobile) Module Download:
Download Bryson, George - The Dark Side of Calvinism Droid MySword Version

Not really. He starts off with caricatures, straw man arguments and out of context quotes of both Piper and Spurgeon then argues that the truth they preach is a false Gospel. Couple that with his erroneous claims that if a person didn't know a truth at salvation it is invalid because they came to know some truths later on.  So much for growing in grace and knowledge as per his argument and applying it readily knowledge after salvation is invalid. 

His arguments are horrendously weak. 

That's not close to being thoughtful. 

you sound rather easily offended at anyone not holding your views. i never said i agree with the assertions made in this book but part of learning and growing should be an understanding of oppossing views. your obvious over reaction speaks of our times we can no longer agree to disagree. you must think like I do or I reject you. indeed sad.

 My views? I simply made comment on Bryson's ridiculous approach and his slanderous caricatures and out of context quotations. Bryson himself has denied understanding opposing views. I used what he said against him. You've not once quoted him nor have you alluded to any of his statements. 

Care to address his actual fallacies, or do do you wish to remain easily offended?

You've stated his writings were informative and thoughtfully written with not one quote of his. I offered examples of his erroneous claims and logical fallacies and rebutted them. 

Nothing in his introductory remarks is substantial, but remain as caricatures and straw man accusations. 

Now, you don't have to think like me for me to reject you, you simply need to back up your claims as I have done. His introductory remarks are invalid drivel, and I addressed his remarks. He's brought nothing to the table. There is no dark side to Calvinism but in his own mind. 

I would be glad to debate all his actual points minus the drama you've brought. Let's stick to what he has actually said, in other words facts.  

preacher4truth,

What Calvinists's attribute to God is very dark in more minds than just Bryson's.

Arminian scholar Roger Olsen makes this serious claim in his book "Against Calvinism":

"For me, and most non-Calvinists, nothing is more important to preserve, protect, and promote than the good name of God—God's reputation based on his good character. Insofar as Calvinism undermines that, I cannot live with its conundrums because they all ultimately injure God's reputation—making it difficult to tell the difference between God and the devil."

http://www.amazon.co...ainst calvinism

http://www.amazon.co...s=for calvinism

I only say this to demonstrate to you that Mr. Bryson is not alone.  Roger Olsen is a respected scholar who had a spirited debate with a Calvinist scholar through the publication of two books (one for and one against Calvinism).

I have not yet read Bryson's book, so I cannot comment as to the content.

Many of us believe Calvinism is in serious error and the system is not at all glorifying to God.

Blessings,

Peter

The greatest lessons we all have to learn come from the greatest Book which teaches the love and character of Jesus menifested in all of our thoughts, speech and actions. Matthew 5:1-10 is a wonderful reminder of the humble and meek character that Jesus wants each of us to have, and this can only be done as we surrender the "old man" to Him every time it shows its head.

All i ask is to listen to a debate between Dr. James White (Calvinist) and George Bryson ( Arminian). What you'll hear is Bryson laying out an argument against a doctrine he truly doesn't understand. Over and over again it's: "well you'll have to read my book". But when it comes to the Reformed/Arminian debate many Arminian views born out of complete ignorance of Calvinism. I did for many, many yrs.

"What is the direct didactic teaching concerning the "natural" man"s will and that will's ability to understand spiritual things?   

"Well there are two definitions that define free will. You have the worldly definition and the Biblical definition. But the general definition that is given is "free will is the ability to make choices without any prior prejudice, inclination, or disposition.  In other words we have the equal ability to opt for good or evil. That there is no information, bias, or tendency that's restricts the expression of our choices"( R.C.Sproul).
So the Arminian/freewill position is that the natural man, outside of Christ, has the ability; by his own initiation and inclination to please God. That the natural will is not really "dead in trespasses and sin"( Eph 2;5; Col.2;13) but merely "tainted", "marred", defaced; and on his own, by his own will, unaided and without restriction, come to Christ. That God woos him to a point of neutrality and says "it's your choice";  "I did the best I can, and now it's ALL up to you!" Hmmm? It says Calvinism teaches that man is without a will and merely a robot. How many times we've heard that? Haha
Here's what Calvinism REALLY says. Calvinism does not say that man is not able to do good; in the sense that everyone is as bad as he can be; that man is not capable of horizontal goodness. Even Hitler and Stalin loved their mother's. Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount, that even tax collectors are able to do the same ( Matt. 5:46). But what the bible does teach is that man, in his falleness, still has a mind; still has a will, with the ability to choose. But his choices, when it comes to HEAVENLY  things, will ALWAYS be to reject and stand off.  Rom 1 says not that man does know God but his inclination is to suppress the knowledge of that. John 3:19 says light ( Jesus Christ) came into the world, but men love the darkness rather than the light". In other words the natural man (1Cor. 2:14) saw Him, heard Him, and killed Him! And yet the natural unregenerate man did  "to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before (predetermined) to be done."( Acts 4:27-28).
1Cor. 2:14 says the natural mind does have a will; but when it comes to the things of heaven he is not able to receive ( understand, behold, grasp, perceive) them. Sin has so radically changed him he's not able to respond.  Jonathan Edwards says in his book "The Freedom of the Will", says that the greatest example of liberty that a man is able to express, is that man is able to choose according to his PREFERENCES, INCLINATIONS, and his DESIRES. So in that sense man is absolutely free to choose what he desires. But what the bible teaches, of unsaved man, what he wants is his sin NOT the Son! That's why they killed Jesus Christ (Matt. 21:33-39). Certainly unsaved unregenerate men are capable of doing good outwardly . Selfless acts are done all the time. Yet is he doing it for the glory of God or because he believes in God? No! Rom. 14:23 says....whatsoever is not of faith is sin". For WITHOUT faith it's IMPOSSIBLE to please God"(Heb. 11:6). And THAT faith is a GIFT of God and NOT OF YOURSELVES lest at any moment man should boast (Eph. 2:8-9). So even if those good works are NOT done out of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ it is sin.  But I'll ask Arminians this: Where do you see free will in

Rom 9:8  This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.
Rom 9:9  For this is what the promise said: "About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son."
Rom 9:10  And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac,
Rom 9:11  though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad--in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls--
Rom 9:12  she was told, "The older will serve the younger."
Rom 9:13  As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."
Rom 9:14  What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means!
Rom 9:15  For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."
Rom 9:16  So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.
Rom 9:17  For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."
Rom 9:18  So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
Rom 9:19  You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?"
Rom 9:20  But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?"
Rom 9:21  Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?
Rom 9:22  What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,
Rom 9:23  in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory--
Rom 9:24  even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?
Rom 9:25  As indeed he says in Hosea, "Those who were not my people I will call 'my people,' and her who was not beloved I will call 'beloved.'"

Joh 1:12  But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,
Joh 1:13  who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
 

Joh 6:44  No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.
Joh 6:63  It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

Joh 6:65  And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."
Act 13:48  And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.

 Man's ability or God's sovereignty? Does man choose God or does God have mercy on whom.. he... wills?

God Bless!

All i ask is to listen to a debate between Dr. James White (Calvinist) and George Bryson ( Arminian).

You made a serious error in your assumption that George Bryson is Arminian. And with that I tend to think that you have a myopic view that anyone who does not hold to Calvinism has to be Arminian, which is a complete fallacy.

If you wish to continue this discussion, it should be taken to Theology Discussions Board, or write your own blog about it.

Blessings,