Inconsistency is a sign of a failed argument – Dr James White

As many of you know, George Bryson sent a letter to all Calvary Chapel pastors bashing and naming a few men in and outside of the Calvary Chapel movement stating that these pastors have no right to criticize Chuck Smith.  His letter, called “How not to Air Your Grievances” was, in my opinion, a disingenous title, as it was meant to scare other CC pastors into staying with Calvary.  George’s primary argument against speeking ill of Chuck came from James 3:5 (Likewise, the tongue is a small part of the body, but it makes great boasts. Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark.).  Not only is it not the context of James 3:5 to say that people should shut up but it also contradicts a quote that Mr Bryson made in his Book “The Dark Side of Calvinism”.

He is quoting John MacArthur and using the quote to give himself justification for “naming names” and exposing Calvinism as a failed and unbiblical position.  The irony comes from him creating a standard for himself but inconsistently holding the other pastors at a different standard.  You be the judge…

“Is it inherently unkind or condemnatory to say someone else’s view is errant?

He then answers:

Not if one has biblical authority for saying so. In fact, to remain silent and allow error to go unexposed and uncorrected is an abdication of the elder’s role (Titus 1:9). The apostle Paul publicly called Peter a hypocrite for compromising biblical principles (Gal. 2:11–15). Peter had been publicly hypocritical; it was right that he be rebuked publicly (cf. 1 Tim. 5:20). To disagree with or critique someone’s published views does not constitute a personal attack.”

MacArthur goes on to say:

“If the Church cannot tolerate polemic dialogue between opposing views—especially if Christian leaders cannot be held accountable for whether their teaching is biblical—then error will have free reign.”” (Dark Side of Calvinism – p25 pp2)

George seems to think that he and Chuck Smith get a free pass on whet ever they say and use James 3:5 as a battering ram against opposing views. Yet others, those who disagree with him, must remain quite and tow the company line.  The most alarming point of this entire thing, is how much the argument smells are Roman Catholicism.  You don’t question the Pope.  Does Chuck see himself in that light?  He would never say so, but you be the judge based on his actions and words.  Another interesting point is that Bryson’s use of James 3:5 is subjective.  Certainly he would never hold others to this standard if say Chuck was having an affair or rejected the Trinity.  I would love to know where Bryson thinks it okay to speak up.

“Inconsistency is a sign of a failed argument” – Dr. James White

Advertisements
    • George Bryson
    • May 11th, 2012

    This is the silliest attempt at a rebuttal that I have read in a very long time. It is also a gross (probably deliberate) misrepresentation of what was actually said, as any who can read will see if they read what was said in my email.

      • schooloffish
      • May 11th, 2012

      Thanks George for weighing in. You are welcome to give your opinion here anytime. For learning sake, perhaps you can give specifics as to where I have misrepresented you? If you do so, I would be glad to post your response as another blog post and not just a comment.

    • George Bryson
    • May 11th, 2012

    For starters I sent the email out to only a fraction of the Calvary Chapel pastors. Though you have given me an idea to think about. Thanks. Secondly I never said or even suggested that “these pastors have no right to criticize Chuck Smith”. You also said my email article “was meant to scare other CC pastors into staying with Calvary” Actually I would like those few pastors who have gone Reformed to leave and not stay if they believe in Reformed theology but call themselves Calvary Chapel pastors. I would also like to see Calvary Chapel pastors who believe it is OK to trash pastor Chuck to leave Calvary Chapel as well. How long would the Calvinists working with and on behalf of James White be around The Dividing Line if they went after him the way these CC pastors went after Chuck? No need to call James to find out. That was a rhetorical question and everyone who knows James knows the answer. From beginning to end your comments suggest that you may not have read my email. If you did read it, given your comments, that is even more problematic.

    • schooloffish
    • May 11th, 2012

    Thanks George, as promised I have posted your comments as a separate blog post. You can read them here https://schooloffish.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=167&action=edit&message=6&postpost=v2 and respond as necessary. I Noticed a large spike in traffic in Russia on the Blog. I suspect you are responsible for that. If so, feel free to tell the others that they are free to respond and defend as necessary.

      • George Bryson
      • May 12th, 2012

      If anyone in Russia is following this I will be surprised. I had never even heard of you or your website until your comments on that website that is attack Chuck site that is not an attack Chuck site that is an attack Chuck site. It may be because I do not know how to read these websites or what is on them but it appears to me that you are a typical anonymous blogger that would like to say anything about anyone no matter how true or false and do not want the accused to know who you are. So if you do me the courtesy of identifying yourself and keep your comments civil, perhaps we can have a real conversation-if that is what you want. If not, have a good time in unaccountability land where a lot of bloggers hide and live.

    • schooloffish
    • May 12th, 2012

    Here’s my Facebook page, feel free to become a friend and find out whatever you want about me. After that, when can we have our conversation?

    https://www.facebook.com/jasonrlaurie

      • George Bryson
      • May 12th, 2012

      If a man would like friends he needs to show himself friendly. If you want a friendly conversation we can have it on your website or even better by email but I do not use Facebook for the purpose that I think you do. No objection to how you use it it is just not the way I use it. In Christ, George

    • schooloffish
    • May 12th, 2012

    George, you accused me of being “a typical anonymous blogger that would like to say anything about anyone no matter how true or false and do not want the accused to know who you are.” I gave you my Facebook page so that you and anyone else who reads this post can know who I am. I’m not sure how you use Facebook, I use it to communicate with friends and family, store pictures of my kids and stuff like that.

    Question. Have you had any response to your letter from the accused and if so have you made those public so that the people who received your letters can have an accurate understanding of who these men are?

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: