I have been one of those silent readers of your exchanges. Several years ago I engaged at least two of your participants on the conservative side in discussions on the old RM-Bible listserver. You guys articulated your position with clarity and I found that, without your help (lol), arrived at these positions long ago. I guess I just got tired of the endless discussions that never seemed to get anywhere. You got somewhere! Not that they quit the discussion but that you pinpointed the inherent contradictions of the conservative/legalist position and they were unable to answer you except to attack the usual rhetorical strawmen they erect. Thanks, again.

Just wanted to express a few words of appreciation for the posts offered that have followed the halting of the discussion. You both have presented a cogent case that makes sense. Finally, something that for a long time has seemingly escaped me makes sense.

Thank you men!

You make good points. I know many former conservatives who’ve become progressive. I can’t think of a single progressive who’s become conservative. There probably are a few, but not many.

I’m third generation in the Churches of Christ. My best friends growing up were the sons of Church preachers — non-institutional and institutional. I grew up conservative, and was thoroughly trained in conservative theology at church and at Lipscomb.

I know the conservative arguments as well as they — better than most. (And Todd knows them better than I do.) But I doubt that I could have argued the case better than Greg, Phil, and Mac. As Todd showed in Facing Our Failure, their position has inherent problems that no one has gotten around in over 100 years of debate.

I’ve always taught that you can’t reach a solid conclusion unless you’ve studied both sides — and I studied both sides in detail before coming to my position. I doubt that many conservatives can make the same statement.

And have you noticed that of all the conservative comments on this site, not a one has challenged our exegesis of the key texts? In a theological discussion, when one side seeks to move the conversation away from scripture, they’ve very nearly conceded.

It would have been my preference for the conservatives (both the 2 principals and those making comments) to have spent their energies delving more deeply into the scriptures — because the only path to unity is through a deeper study of the word. And so we were trying to push the conversation toward exegesis. And I’m deeply disappointed that Phil and Mac preferred to quit.

And it is still my desire that those who remain unpersuaded use the comment feature of this blog to discuss 1 John, Hebrews, and Romans. After all, whatever the true doctrine is, it’ll only be found in the scriptures.

1) Jay and Todd, along with almost every “progressive” that has commented, came out of the “conservative” group — they *know* the arguments because they used to *use* the arguments.

2) There is GREAT joy in heaven when brethren in Christ strive to agree! How can you possibly believe that our Father and his angels don’t rejoice that his people are striving to fulfill his desire for visible unity?

Your cynicism in believing that neither side cares about the other, but only about their own rightness, is neither profitable nor worthy of emulation.

Laymond is right in saying there is no heavenly joy in this conversation, any more than there was heavenly joy when Jesus was hanging on the cross. This does not mean the conversation is not important. It is – as long as it can clarify the truth of the gospel. If people honestly differ, but can still treat each others as brothers, more clarity can come.

I wonder if Mac was more emotionally involved simply because one of the participants on the “other side” is his own son. When your own flesh and blood rejects your cherished beliefs and exhibits his rejection to the world in a way you cannot rebut, it becomes humiliating. I do not think Jay and Todd set out to humiliate him – but, nevertheless, that is what happened, and he lashed out – not as a representative of the conservative church, but as a wounded father. I have compassion for him even as I see his inconsistencies.