Third, i have been criticized for failing to understand the nature of a debate and this debate in particular. That’s just ridiculous. As i mentioned before, my post wasn’t directly addressing the debate, even though that’s what got me thinking about other things i have read and heard by White; i was critiquing White in a general manner about the way he speaks and argues. Furthermore, I know just a little about what a debate is about, how they are conducted, and the proper rules of debate. I was in debate in Middle and High School. My problem is not having people you oppose for the sake of a debate; my problem is with James White’s tendency (and apparently, judging from the firestorm of blogs and comments, those who follow his general theological school have a similar tendency) to fail to recognize that there is a difference between an enemy and a debate opponent. Debate opponents can be (and in White’s case especially, often are) brothers in Christ as fellow professing believers, and they should be treated as such, even in the midst of disagreement or debate. (Many a session meeting would be prevented from going off track if all elders in Christ’s Church would learn that little lesson!)

I don’t expect a theological debate to be a “kumbaya” session. (I don’t really even know where that kind of accusation comes from.) However, i do expect that Christians who engage in debate don’t set the standards for conduct that our Lord gives to us on a shelf somewhere until they’re finished, because explicitly or implicitly, they treat the debate as an excuse to act in a less than Christian manner toward one’s opponents. That *IS* one thing i learnt in formal debate classes: don’t let it get personal. (One exercise we used to prevent this from happening was to switch sides in a debate and argue your opponent’s position! Try that sometime, Dr. White!)

You can disagree with a person’s views and still respect him as an individual—and as Christians, who are called to love even our enemies, certainly we should show that modicum of love toward those with whom we disagree, not being hateful, arrogant, and condescending. But of course, with James White, his condescension isn’t limited to debates; he regularly engages in worse rhetoric on his radio program railing against other *CHRISTIANS* (yes, with different views, but still his brothers in Christ) and putting them down as not believing the Bible or not taking this or that doctrine seriously. He did this very thing to me, even though he admitted he did not even know me, based solely upon my criticism of him in my one blog post—and he didn’t even make an attempt to give me the opportunity to call in and respond to his derision over the phone!

But, as Gene Bridges pointed out, the debate was about God’s sovereignty, and hence, White’s solely focusing on that subject was appropriate, or so he claims. I’m not saying White shouldn’t focus on God’s sovereignty; my criticism, and it extends beyond this debate to most of White’s work, is that there is more to believing, discussing, and debating Calvinism than affirming God’s sovereignty or thinking only in terms of God’s sovereignty. In other words, arguing against a person who so emphasizes man’s action and responsibility should involve at least some addressing and concession of the reality of man’s action and responsibility, especially when that question is brought to bear. We shouldn’t focus exclusively on the responsibility side, like the Arminians do, and we shouldn’t focus exclusively on the sovereignty side, like many Calvinists want to do. The way forward is to keep both in proper balance the way that they are in God’s Word. So, if someone asks about God’s desire toward the non-elect (who have heard the Gospel of not), we should recognize that they are speaking of God’s preceptive will, which is God’s desire for us to fulfill our duty. Hence, we can and should affirm that God desires the salvation of all the non-elect, insofar as he has commanded them to repent and believe and be saved, and insofar as he has told us plainly that it is his desire to see all men to be saved. God desires his commandments to be kept: That’s the heart of the assumption behind the preceptive will of God, and so we can rightly say that, anything God commands he desires to take place.

Again, though, it is more than simply the fact that “we don’t know who the elect are” (again, the thinking always centered in the decree rather than what is revealed), and more importantly than that, it is we who are the primary persons offering Christ in the Gospel; God is. That’s why it’s not enough to speak of the “free offer,” which gives some unscrupulous Calvinists the wiggle room to act as though *WE* are freely offering salvation, but that doesn’t change the fact that *GOD* only really offers salvation to, or even wants at all, the elect to be saved. But that’s not what Scripture teaches. Scripture teaches that God is merciful toward all and desires all men to repent and come to a knowledge of Christ. So, there really is something to this thing about only thinking in terms of God’s sovereignty on every issue. That’s important (i wouldn’t be a Calvinists if i didn’t think so), but it’s not all there is.