It is the battle of the colors: White vs. Brown. While I disagree with Michael Brown’s position in this debate, I do have great respect for the man; and this debate is a good example of why. Unlike so many others who have debated the Calvinist position, Brown truly seeks to accurately represent Calvinism and argue from a well thought out study (i.e. exegesis) of Scripture. While I think James White does a wonderful job pointing out Brown’s inconsistencies and short-falls, Brown certainly brings something to the table. Another pleasant reality to the debate is that James White and Michael Brown are close friends who have worked together in the stance for biblical truth and the biblical gospel. They are friends, and this comes out in the debate. That being said, their differences are important, and both of them approach the debate with a serious demeanor.
A couple problems I have with Brown’s argumentation is that he repeatedly refers to the Calvinist position as a view that God “programs” what will take place. This is a poor choice of words that doesn’t properly speak to the Calvinist belief in God’s sovereignty in all things. Let us not forget that Calvinists do believe in the moral and personal responsibility of mankind, a concept not communicated in the “program” accusation. Further, Brown does briefly fall into the poor argumentation found in so many other rebuttals by non-Calvinists, that we Calvinists can’t go up to someone and say, “Christ died for you.” This is an argument that begs the question and is without any Scriptural basis (the apostles never witnessed like that).
Overall, this is a friendly and engaging debate on some very key issues. Both sides reference Scripture extensively and seek to accurately represent the opposing viewpoint.