Open Letter To Brother J. R. Clark
My Dear Brother Clark:
Since you are editor and publisher of Word and Work magazine, the paper of the premillennial brethren published here in Louisville; your article in the issue of December, 1956, can hardly be representative of the title, "One Man's Opinion." It becomes the opinion of the paper you edit concerning the recent debate between Brother Schreiner and me; hence, this reply directed to you.
I am glad that you correctly stated that the charges made by me were against Brother Schreiner's "belief." But I am sorry that you saw fit to forget the fact you had already mentioned when you said: "Let them refrain from seeking to wreak ruin on their opponent by unwarranted accusations." There is a difference between "wreaking ruin" upon a person's doctrine and in "wreaking ruin" upon the person. I quoted from your own Brother Boll to show that he knew the difference and approved of showing what the "implications and logical conclusions" of a proposition are. You praise him and continue to reprint his writings as authority. Surely, then, you will accept his position approving of my action in this matter. Also, the rules of honorable controversy agreed upon by Brother Schreiner and me so approve.
In fact, the serious charges made by me against the doctrine held by Brother Schreiner and premillennialists were substantiated in the debate. The arguments and inadvertent admissions made by Brother Schreiner were clear evidence of the correctness of the charges. If you and Brother Schreiner disavow the logical consequences and conclusions of the doctrine as you state in the article, then, to be logical and approved of God, you will need to abandon the doctrine.
The very purpose of such a religious study is for the opponents to attempt to show what is wrong with the implications and conclusions of the other's position. If I thought that nothing was wrong with premillennialism I would be dishonorable in engaging in such a controversial study. If Brother Schreiner thought that nothing was wrong with my position then it would be deceptive and dishonorable for him to engage in such a controversy with me. Your suggestion, then, that if further debates are engaged in we not make any charges against the doctrine, implies that you fear that we can prove the correctness of the charges.
Your article suggests that there is the possibility of further such studies being arranged on these same issues. I am happy to notice this. I am sure that the congregation here will endorse me in a discussion with you on the same propositions used in the recent debate, or other suitable propositions agreed on between us, and when other suitable conditions and arrangements can be worked out between us. I assure you that there will be no personal aspersions cast by me against you. On the other hand, I shall do my best to show what is wrong with your position. I would expect the same of you toward me and my position.
Our mannerisms may be different, as mortals are different from one another; but let us study these matters further, in all seriousness, that unity of faith may be attained.
Sincerely for the Truth,