019-- A Further Request for Clarification

 

Dear bro. Genusa,

Greetings in Christ our Lord.

Again may I say that I really appreciate the tone of this last letter.

You simply have me wrong when you say I am not willing to face things which contradict my personal beliefs. But you should not suspect for a minute, that I would accept a position without challenging that position. I expect you to challenge the things that I say, and I expect to be able to clearly exhibit the answer, or be convinced that I am wrong.

You are correct that I have not responded to your email yet. After you suggested our correspondence should end, I desired to know your true intent, to know how to respond. I have many questions I want to ask you, that I might better understand your position. If I am going to be able to ask those questions, I will proceed one way. If you have no more desire to answer questions on your position, then I will close out the process, by responding in full to your email and web site.

I commend you for carrying on this discussion as long as you have. No Central brother ever has. I have learned much from your discussion, as regards how you reach your conclusions, that I didn't previously know. I would like to know so much more. By reading your web site and letters etc., I can tell you are a thoughtful brother. I know there has to be a logic behind your staying in Central, that goes deeper than what I have been able to get from you, and ones I have observed like you, to this point.

And yes, I know you believe you have made your point. But I don't believe that to be the case. The question becomes why don't I think so. Am I just stubborn and set in my ways, or do I have legitimate questions surrounding some of the things you teach. The answer to my mind is that I believe I know of things certain things as facts, which are blocking your points. I am interested in why they do not block those points in your mind. It is not a matter of stubbornness, but legitimate questions.

Let me give you an example. You quote from bro. Thomas' fellowship views in 1848 and his trip to Britain, recorded in the 1851 Herald. These views clearly contradict the things that I believe, as you point out. But brother Roberts is very clear in "Life and Works" that at the point of this 1848 trip, bro. Thomas' views on fellowship had not reached the conviction he afterwards reached, that duty required separation at the breaking of bread from those like the Church of Christ folks he was breaking bread with in 1841.

Now if bro. Roberts is correct, can you explain to me how you feel justified in quoting from bro. Thomas from a time which did not represent his ultimate views? And in Eureka, bro. Thomas identifies the Campbellites as constituents in the Laodecean ecclesia, stating clearly that the Antipas could have no fellowship with them. In 1848 he argued that he could have fellowship with Campbellites. By 1860 he is arguing that he cannot, and brother Roberts said that it was due to the fact that he hadn’t reached the same conviction in 1848 that he had later in life, and by the time he wrote Eureka.

These are the kinds of questions that I regard as legitimate, and for which I would like to understand your answer.

There are many other questions I have as well. A Central sister came to my house in Austin to visit my mother when she was here three years ago. When she found out I was Berean, she became quite critical, of me, using arguments quite similar to what you have advanced in certain places. I asked her, if her principles were correct, why she did not return to the Catholic Church? She answered me "They would not have me." I’d guess you have a different answer to that question. Unlike the belief of this sister, I know you do draw fellowship lines somewhere, and somehow. I have no idea how you make these decisions. All of these things I sincerely desire to know. But it is of little value just to tell me. You have to be able to prove your position in the face of reasonable cross examination; just as I expect to have to do, with your questions should they come.

My preference is not to get into dueling web sites with you. My preference is to continue to try to reach a meeting of our minds, by better understanding each other, on this fundamental principle.

Sincerely,

Jim Phillips