Elmo Says: "Let's Play: What Now?": Response from Les Puryear

*Update:  Les Puryear has responded to this post.  Take a peek and see if you think he dealt with the concerns we've raised.   

Last Monday, I wrote a piece speculating a "What if?" a few more decided to "run" for President of the Southern Baptist Convention.  Since then, we've gotten confirmation from all three I mentioned about their intentions.  Al Mohler is not going to do it.  Neither is David Dockery.  In fact, a Tim Ellsworth, Director of News and Media Relations, Union University, made it clear on this site that Dr. Dockery was not in the running:

Peter,

There's no story about Dr. Dockery being nominated for SBC president because Dr. Dockery will not be nominated for SBC president. Despite what you might be hearing, I can tell you with 100 percent certainty that Dr. Dockery will not be a candidate.

Tim Ellsworth
Director of News and Media Relations
Union University

Thanks, Tim.  We appreciate the affirmation and are glad that at least now we know.  We also are glad to find out that Ben Cole does not have the persuasive skills some have attributed to him.

As a byline here, longtime Southern Baptist, Avery Willis is in also.  Micah Fries seems to like this guy a lot as candidate.  Old timers in the SBC know him well.  That's why it's surprising Fries likes him so much since Fries epitomizes the younger Baptist generation.  Moreover, Willis may be the guy Enid's gang gets behind since their favorite, David Dockery, is out to lunch for a year or so. 

Thus, of the three I mentioned, two have assured the SBC subculture, they are not interested this year, leaving Les Puryear.  However, "What if?" is no longer Elmo's game; "What now?" is official:  Puryear will run.

In a press release by the Baptist Press editorial staff, a dear friend of Puryear's, Rev. Dwight Mckissic, Senior Pastor of the Cornerstone Baptist Church in Arlington, Texas and former trustee of the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary made the announcement:

"I have known Les to be a person of integrity, vision, and compassion," McKissic concluded. "He wants to work with all of the people in the Southern Baptist Convention, no matter what their differences are in regard to non-essential doctrinal beliefs, race or church size. It will be my privilege to nominate him as the next President of the SBC."

I mentioned in the post last week that "if the criteria is small church passion and support, Les holds the bar hands down.  No one in blogdom can come close to his commitment to the backbone of the SBC."  I still believe that. 

However, from my perspective, I do not at all think small church passion and support is either the only criteria for being considered President of the SBC or even the chief criteria.  Heck, it may not even be a criteria at all.

I've expressed my lament about what I sense as a back door bashing of big churches before. Dwight McKissic mentions as one of several reasons he supports Les Puryear for President is Puryear's commitment to small churches: 

"Les is a small church pastor and he represents the majority of the convention. It's time for the Southern Baptist Convention to acknowledge that small churches are just as valuable in God's kingdom as any other size church."

What I don't get about this is, who has ever stated or believed that small churches are less valuable in God's kingdom than any other size church?   Oh, I'm sure there is a pea-brained nincompoop out there somewhere that thinks his church superior because it's big.  Who is this person? 

And, is that the feeling among Southern Baptists at large or is it the feeling among a few guys on the Internet?  Perhaps Lifeway should do a study on that.  Then, we'd have the incontrovertible statistics about the matter (grin, grin).

Puryear's problem in being elected as President of the SBC will not be that he cares for small churches.  Nor surely is it because he pastors a small church.  Puryear's problem as a candidate goes much deeper, I fear. 

Aside from his absolute unknown status outside North Carolina where he abides, Puryear has a weakness, at least in my view, with his CP giving at his church. According to the BP release, Puryear's church gives 5.9% to the CP. 

Compare that with, say, Frank Cox who gives 13% to the CP. Now, that's interesting.  Usually, the "big" church is the one who is shamed by the "little" church in CP giving.  At least, that's the conventional wisdom.  Not so in this scenario.

Another thing I'd wonder is longevity.  Frank Cox graduated from New Orleans Seminary almost thirty years ago.  Upon doing so, he took a little, plateaued church in the Northeast portion of metropolitan Atlanta.  He has not moved.  In fact, one might say, Frank Cox was a small church pastor who stayed long enough for North Metro First Baptist Church to swell to some 2,000 in attendance. 

My question is, how many churches has Puryear pastored since he graduated from seminary in the late nineties?  And, did the churches he has pastored chronologically ascend in attendance? That is, was his move--assuming he has moved--to a larger congregation?  If it was, I would wonder why.  If Puryear believes so much in the virtue of small churches, why move to a "larger" church?   

Granted, this may not be relevant to some.  It most certainly is to me.  For I want to know just how deep the passion goes and if there exists a desire for a "bigger" church.

Whatever the case, this unfortunately is not the biggest obstacle Puryear faces as President, I assure.  The biggest obstacle is Puryear's gaffes he's made all over the Internet.  I cite two examples.

First, Puryear seems confident he can work with both Calvinists and NonCalvinists to bring us together.  I'm glad he specifically names Calvinism as his convictional soteriology.  But while he is confident he can bring Calvinist and NonCalvinist together, I am not so confident he can pull it off. 

In fact, Puryear has made some of the most polemical statement about NonCalvinism on the net, calling it a "man-centered" message and insulting former SBC President, Dr. Jerry Vines*** in the process.  Les Puryear wrote:

I am greatly disturbed by the distribution of Dr. Jerry Vines' atrocious sermon on Calvinism at FBC Woodstock to all churches in Florida by an executive of the Florida Baptist Convention...Brothers and sisters, this is just the beginning of man-centered Arminians seeking to stamp out anyone and anything that they don't understand or does not meet their tradition of belief. I must admit that Wade Burleson and others have been warning us that this would happen. Sorry for doubting you about this, Wade."

While probably no one has asked Dr .Vines whether he is either "man-centered" in his theology or an "Arminian" seeking to "stamp out anyone and anything" he doesn't understand or does not meet "his tradition of belief,", I have a feeling Dr. Vines would have a different answer to that question than Puryear contends he does. 

Moreover, I have to say, as a NonCalvinist myself, I think it's tough going for me if I had to work together with someone who believes my understanding of the Good News of Jesus Christ is "man-centered."  The Humanist Manifesto II says:  "there is no deity who will save us; we must save ourselves."  Now, there's a "man-centered" message, Mr. Puryear.  But understand:  I am no secular humanist, I assure. Nor is Jerry Vines.

A second, even more serious gaffe, in my view, is Puryear's flirtation with Covenant theology.  A while back, Les Puryear boldly sympathized with Michael Corley's leaving the SBC for a PCA church.  This was only 10 months ago!   Puryear's sympathy extends to:

• The embrace of Arminianism which place more emphasis on the contribution of man than to the sovereignty and glorification of God
• The unwillingness to solidify positions of church doctrine and to enforce these positions throughout the denomination
• The promotion and outlright [sic] endorsement of unscriptural church growth movements including the seeker-driven, purpose driven life and emergent church movements
• The growing acceptance of women in ministry leadership
• The denominations growing involvement in ecumenicalism.

How Puryear is going to work well with Calvinists and NonCalvinists alike when he evidently laments the "Arminianism" in our convention and wishes we could "solidify positions of church doctrine" and "enforce these positions throughout the denomination" is a question I think needs asking.  Additionally, Puryear needs to explain to both Enid and Emergent supporters his apparent disdain for their special interests as well.

Worst of all, however, is Puryear's explicit flirtation with baptizing babies as theologically sound.  Note carefully his words in the comment thread of his post less than a year ago:

"You see, personally, I am finding myself more and more amenable to Covenant Theology, including the practice of paedobaptism. I have taken the time to read several books about these beliefs and I find myself nodding my head in agreement with what I am reading.  Where does that place me theologically? Right now, I'm not quite sure. I feel like I'm somewhere in a demilitarized zone between baptist and presbyterian."

O.K.  Now, honestly:  Would you vote for one as President of the SBC who is amenable to baptizing babies, who nods his head in agreement with it?  Would you?  Would you vote for President one who, theologically, is between baptist and presbyterian?  Would you?  For me, I refuse to answer such nonsense.

With that, I am...

Peter

***Rarely does it occur that Biblical repentance, humility, forgiveness and subsequent reconciliation are acknowledged in the blogging world.  It happened here. 

Camel Rider sought forgiveness and reconciliation with Dr. Jerry Vines, whose character was maligned on this thread.  Dr. Vines graciously extended such as any who knows him knew he would. 

This sad moment turned into a moment of learning for us all:  when we are tired we are weakened in the flesh and are vunerable to listen to the flesh.  When we sin against another, admit it, beg forgiveness and make restitution.  God is fully glorified! 

Great and godly men like Dr. Jerry Vines are not perfect men but are true men of God toward whom we owe a great amount of gratitude to our Lord for raising up among us, living a Christ-like example for all of us to both follow and from which we learn. 

With that, I am...

Peter   

Comments

[Randy W]

David, yes you're pretty much on target with your description of me. I've been PCA now 12 years, interesting journey. Most of my family are still SBC and I regularly fellowship (and preach) in some of their churches. I love my heritage and the old Baptist hymns. She will forever be a part of me and I’m not against “believer’s baptism” (the PCA practices it too), or even baptism by immersion

Pete, I’d challenge you on one point, and that is that infant baptism doesn't necessarily equal unregenerate church members. No more than believers baptism protects against it.

How many times have you seen Baptist, re-baptized because they said they didn’t know what they were doing the first time?

I know of one church in particular that must have re-baptized 25% of the congregation!

The point is, either they were saved and were confused; or they were baptized by immersion upon a false profession of faith, making them unregenerate church members.

In the PCA, infants are baptized with sprinkling or pouring. The biblical symbology is rooted in Covenant Theology; clean water comes from Ezekiel where reference to a New Covenant is made.

Yet, that infant is not a full, or communing, church member. Not until as an older child the person goes before the elders to profess Christ as Savior and then before the chuch. One of the points of the baptism is to bring the child under the care of a local church in way where the congregation, family and elders pledge to point the child toward Christ so that they may embrace Him.

In fact, the PCA do not simply accept new members "by letter" from another PCA church. They still must go before the elders and give a profession of faith. I have joined a lot of SBC churches in my lifetime, no one ever asked me to share how I came to know Christ.

I totally agree with being faithful to ones ecclesiology, and love it or leave it. (I’ll tell you my journey sometime.) And as I said, I love my heritage, I just wish some things were different.

[peter lumpkins]

Randy,

No need for an apology, here Brother. I have been doing this blogging gig now for a solid two years--actually that makes me a veteran, relatively speaking! We are not sensitive to "tones",etc., or at least try not to be. Personally, I'm more interested in words than digging into psyches.

That said, if there is a mass exit of guys from SBC to PCA, I applaud it. For my part, Baptist ecclesiology is biblical ecclesiology.

If we do possess those who are accepting of baptizing babies, then we possess those among us who do not wholeheartedly embrace believer's baptism by immersion.

And if we possess those among us who do not wholeheartedly embrace believer's baptism by immersion, then we possess those among us who do not wholeheartedly embrace regenerate church membership.

And if we possess those among us who do not wholeheartedly embrace regenerate church membership, then we possess those among us who do not wholeheartedly embrace separation between church and state.

And if we possess those among us who do not wholeheartedly embrace separation of church and state, then we possess those among us who do not wholeheartedly embrace religious liberty.

And if we possess those among us who do not wholeheartedly embrace religious liberty, then we possess those among us who evidently embrace religious intolerance.

And if we possess those among us who do not wholeheartedly repudiate religious intolerance, then we possess those among us who do not wholeheartedly embrace republican democracy.

And if we possess those among us who do not wholeheartedly embrace republican democracy, then we possess those among us who do not wholeheartedly embrace the United States of America.

And if we possess those among us who do not wholeheartedly embrace the United States of America, then we possess those among us who do not wholeheartedly reject totalitarianism.

And if we possess those among us who do not wholeheartedly reject totalitarianism, then we possess those among us who do not wholeheartedly embrace fundamental human rights.

And if we possess those among us who do not wholeheartedly embrace fundamental human rights, then we possess those among us who do not wholeheartedly support the NRA.

And if we possess those among us who do not wholeheartedly support the NRA, then we possess those among us who do not wholeheartedly...

What's the use. Just get out!!*

Grace. With that, I am...

Peter

*In respect to a friend's advice, I removed the random characters at the end of this 'satire' due to the possible offensive nature. It was meant to be comical; it could have easily been taken as offense. For that, I am sorry. If any were offended, I offer my deepest apologies.

Grace to all. With that, I am...

Peter

[volfan007]

Randy,

Thanks for the apology, and for the explanation and clarification. I guess we all come across arrogant at times, even when we dont mean to.

Also, I'm guessing that I was right about you being a five point, Dortian Calvinist who believes in infant baptism, and who doesnt mind sprinkling for baptism? Was I right? Also, are you now a Presbyterian?

Chris, your comment was very interesting reading. Thanks for sharing this with us. I used to be Methodist, but my family became Baptist a long time ago due to the liberalism in the Methodist denomination. I'm glad I'm a Baptist now. I hope that one day you will be able to say that you are glad to be a Baptist kind of Christian.

David

[Chris]

Out of the 7 reasons Michael Corley gave for leaving the SBC, arguably only the first and third not a problem in the PCA. One still hears the occasional rumor of Arminian elders and deacons and the third point is not applicable to a certain extent, but the unwillingness to exercise church discipline is not something that Baptists have a monopoly on. As to the other points, to varying degrees there are controversies within the PCA related to enforcing doctrine throughout the denomination, emergent and seeker sensitive churches, egalitarianism and the PCA is no less ecumenical than the SBC. The fact that controversies have been raging for years on some of these issues in the PCA and that some of the seminaries that supply the PCA with pastors are exacerbating some of the problems is no secret.

I write this as someone who is Calvinistic and who has recently been a member of a Presbyterian (OPC) church for a couple of years. I am now poised to join a SBC church after realizing the error that I made. In "Why I am a Baptist" Paige Patterson noted that as a system Reformed theology is remarkably tight and that it has many things about it that are commendable but I now agree with him that it is not consistent with what we find in the scriptures. I also believe that the practice of infant baptism tends to undermine sola fide when all of the implications are considered.

Lest there is anyone reading this who is weary of Baptist battles or other objectionable aspects that sometimes and longingly looks over the fence at what seem to be greener and more peaceful pastures on the conservative confessional Presbyterian side, I say to you that the grass is NOT greener on the other side. There is just as much fighting there, and arguably over more significant issues like paedocommunion and others.

I am not sure exactly where I stand on the "Baptist Identity" controversy, partly because I don't quite understand what exactly the position of Dr. Yarnell and others is on issues like alien immersion and I'm not sure yet where I come down on that issue. But I do support efforts to avoid everyone ending up in some bland, amorphus, lowest common denominator evangelical blob and thought so when I was a Presbyterian as well.

[Randy W]

First, I must apologize to all that my post came across as ‘snobbery’ or a ‘rant.’

Perhaps it’s some latent feelings I need to explore. Certainly niether could be further from the surface of my heart or the front of my mind.

I stand corrected on the baptizo translate washings. It is actually baptismo in Hebrews 6:2; 9:10 which is translated ‘divers washings’ in the KJV, or more appropriately ‘ceremonial washings’ in the NIV.

While, I do not proffer myself as a theologian or scholar (or even a gentlemen for that matter), far from it; I stand in the company of J. I. Packer, Francis Shaffer, R.C. Sproul, and Jay Adams, who also have such "strange" views.

Admittedly, I do not know 40,000 SBC pastors. Anecdotally, however, since being a Southern Baptist since 1969, I've yet to have one conversation with a SBC pastor who has even the foggiest notion as to how their brothers from the Reformed Tradition squarely base covenant baptism on Scripture. But I do get a lot of blank stares.

Therefore, Puryear, in my opinion, better understands what the SBC is up against with the rise of Reformed Baptist.

The PCA gladly opens their arms to SBC crossovers for theological reasons. But if they get any more, NOBTS is going to be having an alumni breakfast at the annual General Assembly.

Fraternally Yours,
Randy

[peter lumpkins]

Randy,

Glad you logged on. First, I do not agree that SBC seminaries "avoid this doctrine altogether". I cannot see how one could miss such in systematic theology, church history and Baptist history. Not necessarily the "doctrine" per se. Indeed Baptists argue paedobaptism is definitively not a Biblical doctrine. But surely the theme is dealt with in various contexts--at least it was for me.

Secondly, to simplistically suggest, as you do, Randy, that '"baptizo" translated "washings."' while not the subject of this post, must be the strangest conclusion I've heard in some time. I invite you to test your conclusion against some stellar scholarly resources I'd be delighted to offer for your amusement.

Even more telling is that virtually every branch of the Christian church concedes to a large extent that baptism as practiced in the NT was undoubtedly immersion. They contend not that NT baptism was not immersion; rather that immersion is not essential to practicing NT baptism in post apostolic times.

Nor Randy do Baptists "practically worship" Baptism any more than Baptists "practically worship" the Supper or eternal security or justification by faith alone through Christ alone. Instead, believer's baptism by immersion stands a non-negotiable doctrine Baptists historically embrace. How that fits "practically worship" I stand at a loss to grasp.

Finally, to suggest Puryear "may be one of the few SBC pastors who can honestly say that he's examined the facts" is absurd. How do you know to what extent 40,000+ pastors has or has not examined to be the case? Moreover, as it stands, that's a pretty descent bit of snobbery you've composed there, my brother.

I trust all is well. Peace this evening. With that, I am...

Peter

[Randy W]

Ooops I obviously touched a raw nerve. Didn't think I was on a high horse. Just food for thought from a different perspective.

Blessings

[volfan007]

Randy,

Just how high up was that horse you came riding in here?

Do you realize just how ignorant your whole rant sounds? Or, did you honestly think that you were truly enlightening us?

Let me guess? You are a five point, Dortian Calvinist who believes in baptising babies? And, you dont mind sprinkling people on the top of their heads and calling that baptism? Did I come close?

David

[Randy W]

Personally, I applaud this Puryear fellow for honestly wrestling with a doctrine that SBC seminaries avoid altogether (MDIV NOBTS 94).

I can only recall one classroom lecture when a question about baptism was discussed. A question was posed about the practice of the early church and baptism, and the professor simply dismissed it altogether saying, "baptizo means to immerse and can only mean to immerse." (I felt very betrayed when I later discovered "baptizo" translated "washings.")

Further, most "Baptists," (more appropriately, "immersionist" for we are all "baptist"), wrongly assume that there is no biblical basis for adherents of infant baptism.

Indeed, most immersionist think that all infant baptism is the same i.e. Lutherans baptize infants for the same reason as Presbyterians do. IMHO this discredits the SBC from any serious debate on the subject.

For a denomination that practically worships mode of baptism, over the substance of baptism, one would think there would be an entire core curriculum on the various modes and meanings practiced.

But then again, you might all be PCA once you discovered that
a. water baptism is a non-essential to just about everything. b. Spiritual baptism of regeneration is the basis of "One faith, one Lord, one baptism."

Puryear, just may be one of the few SBC pastors who can honestly say that he's examined the facts and chooses to be an immersionist base on his findings.

I would argue that makes him more of an immersionist than the rest.

Blessings, Randy

[peter lumpkins]

Chris,

Thanks. I'm glad we can keep this conversation as "light" as possible. This is tough for me. I have absolutely nothing at stake in this as the new post I hope illustrates. Nor surely is this an attack against Les.

I count him, if not a friend (I've never met nor spoken to him; only the net), then surely a brother. He's never said nor written anything for me to question such in the least. This is, for me, principle at stake.

Grace, Chris. With that, I am...

Peter

[Chris Johnson]

Brother Peter,

He seems to have answered the simple questions. Explaining the delta would be beneficial should he embark upon the quest of SBC President.

What he has taught and is teaching is important.....because that is what qualifies him, along with a few other things ...to remain qualified as Sheperd and leader of the flock of God.

I'm not the smartest guy on the block, but I know one thing, if I ever run for any political office, I want you in my camp if at all possible. :)

Blessings,
Chris

[peter]

All,

Jim raises a very significant issue: waffling. Unfortunately for Les Puryear, he is publicly known to go completely in another direction.

Les' fire:

"I publicly repent of my support for Wade and can honestly say Wade Burleson is unfit to serve as trustee of the IMB" (paraphrase; and yes, I can document that).

Les was "friends" with Wade a few months later.

Grace. With that, I am...

Peter

[peter]

Chris,

I've never once suggested what Les may or may not have taught his church. That is completely irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.

The question is how the "70 words" square with his desire to be President of the SBC. If you can live with that, Chris, be my guest. I can't. Period. Not until he explains himself.

With that, I am...

Peter

[Jim]

Well my question is this . . .

in July 07 he says one thing, now in May of 08 (conveniently after announcing his candidacy) he says something else. Which is it?

Does he still nod his head in agreement with the practice of of
infant baptism? Or does he not?

Does he still want to leave the SBC? Or does he want to be SBC president? To my knowledge we have never had an SBC president who was not a member of an SBC church.

Which is it. There are conflicting statements made in a short amount of time. AT BEST he seems a man not sure what he believes, not convinced of his own theological leanings. Regardless of who our president is, I want him to be a man fully convinced in what he believes. Especially on an issue that is a Baptist Identity issue such as believer's baptism.

Speaking of Baptist Identity Issues . . . personal note to Debbie... lighten up. I was joking around. This earthly existence is a miserable journey when we take ourselves and other things so seriously.

Smile awhile, and give your face a rest

Raise your hands to the One you love the best

Turn around to someone near

Shake their hand and SMILE . . .

[Chris Johnson]

I think Steve has presented the important answer....

Blessings,
Chris

[Steve]

It would also be about his perceived wisdom in announcing his doubts to the world before he announced them to his church. Will he also exercise such discernment and wisdom in leadership?
Prov 12:23 A shrewd person conceals knowledge, but a foolish heart publicizes stupidity

[Chris Johnson]

Brother Ron,

Fair enough,....
I see that you are an IT guy and a Texan. Two pretty good things... Here is my email...maybe we can talk shop sometime.

chris.johnson@fmc-na.com

Blessings,
Chris

[volfan007]

I love Les, and I think that he's a fine, Christian man; but Ron and Peter make some very good points.

Now, Les told us that Now he does believe firmly in believers baptism only.

Now, Les told us that he does not believe in CT.

But, it was not that long ago that he was waffling on these issues, and was considering becoming Presbyterian. Thank God Les saw the light, and now he's back on track. But, I do think that Peter and Ron raise some very real concerns about a potential SBC President.

David

[Ron P.]

Chris,

I was in the middle of typing this when I noticed that you posted a response. First let me thank you for the dialog. I do see where you are coming from. I hope you and others can see where I am coming from. I agree that immersion is a Biblical distinctive, which is why it is also a Baptist distinctive. I do not believe that I suggested that we Baptists have created it.

In a nutshell, this is about the timing of his candidacy being so close to those statements.

I do not want to come across as harsh, and I hope I have not. But I think there is a clear distinction from what we should rightly expect of someone who wants to be SBC President and someone who is a pastor of a local autonomous church.

IMHO, an SBC President should not be one who recently considered leaving the SBC for another denomination nor should he be one who recently considered himself to be amenable to paedobaptism. He should be one who is unashamedly and thoroughly Biblically Baptistic, since he is serving Southern Baptists. Les has given me reason to believe his foundations in this regard are not strong enough for him to be President.

This debate and issue actually has little to do with Les. It is about the position for which he seeks.

Let me state that if Adrian Rogers made the same 70 word statement back in 1979 that Les recently made, I would have been as adamant that he should not have been President of the SBC.

Blessings,

Ron P.

[Chris Johnson]

Brother Ron,

One other thing I meant to add,....is that baptism is not a "Baptist" distinctive. It is rather a New Covenant Biblical command (distinctive).

Sometimes we get all excited and think we have created something new (baptism) for the Christian world, or that we have reclaimed something that was stolen. It may be better summed up... that God has graciously allowed us to see His word and to obey,... just as he taught his disciples.

Blessings,
Chris

[Chris Johnson]

Brother Ron,

I am not saying that it should not give the SBCer pause. What I am advocating, is… let us find out what he believes by what he does in practice. Anyone can say a few words and provoke a lot of questions. No doubt, those 70 words certainly raises the eyebrow, and we must be careful about what we say… but lets look at the facts. What has Les done, how has he led, how does he lead now, …..those things are pretty good indicators of how he will lead in the future.

If I were to get upset with what Pastors say…..then, well…I would probably be upset every minute the rest of my life. Life is to short for that method of understanding.

Just because someone “says” they believe in immersion as proper baptism, doesn’t necessarily give evidence that they are even Baptist, or even understand what baptism really means. Many Baptist don’t really understand,… there seems to be a variety of Baptist definitions and understanding among the churches on why Christians are immersed at the command of Christ.

I think I will dig into Les’s baptismal theology and practice before I label him hermeneutically corrupt.

Blessings,
Chris

[Ron P.]

Chris,

I agree that leading his flock is relevant. Do you concede that his consideration of leaving his flock for another denomination such a short time ago is also relevant?

Again, were he not running for SBC President this year (or the next few years), it would not matter. However, I believe it to be relevant only because he is running for SBC President now.

I am truly shocked that this bedrock Baptist distinctive, which he questioned mere months ago, as well as his consideration to leave the SBC, again, mere months ago, does not give every Southern Baptist pause to question why it would be appropriate to elect him President of the SBC.

Blessings,

Ron P.

[Chris Johnson]

Brother Ron,

I think it does matter what he practices. Does he practice paedobaptism? Does he teach Covenant Theology leading to paedobaptism? Those are legitimate questions.

Maybe we can ask some of those he teaches... they should know.

I have not seen any evidence that would implicate Les in leading his flock to paedobaptism or to tenants of Covenant Theology that would lead to paedobaptism.

If that were true,...it would be worth noting....and yes any SBCer should be alerted. But where is the evidence? Is the evidence the 70 words in the string of a post concerning one of his friends?

Using 70 words seems a little lopsided... in order to make a judgement call on what Les teaches to those God has given to him to lead. I would like to understand what he is teaching to his flock.

Blessings,
Chris

[Wayne Smith]

Peter and David/Volfan007,

Do you agree with the comment above by Ron P???

Wayne

[Ron P.]

All,

I think many of you are missing the main point here. It is not whether it is OK for anyone to genuinely inquire of other doctrines and contemplating leaving the SBC. That has never been the issue.

The issue is for someone to do the above and then decide only a few months later to run for President of the SBC! If his comments were some 15 or 20 years ago, but his practice over a long period of time was as his most recent statements, then this really would be a moot point and his most recent statement could stand on its own.

The question then becomes: Why should the SBC elect someone as President, who only months ago was contemplating leaving the SBC for a denomination more closely aligned with his doctrinal beliefs and unsure of our most well known Baptist distinctive for which we were derisively given our name?

Ron P.

[jasonk]

Thanks for the clarification, Katie. I like to bring a little comedy into the conversation, even if it is unintended :>)
Have a great day!

[katie]

Hi JasonK,

I wasn't taking a dig at you. I found your comment genuinely funny! I also thought it was time for a little comic relief! Anyway, whenever we find the words "baptism" and "watered down" in the same sentence we ought to smile.

Katie

[Chris Johnson]

Brother Peter,

I found the link….it was in your article all along…sorry I missed it before now.

It appears that Les was responding in the string of a post where he linked back to a friends departure from the SBC to the PCA and made a 70 word comment that may live in infamy. I would not take a comment to another man’s article as to what doctrine Les Puryear would teach to his church concerning baptism or his support for this system of theology called the Covenant of Grace.

I would simply ask him what he teaches and what he believes….that would derive more substance on whether I could follow his teachings or not.

Is he teaching Paedobaptism? Is he teaching Covenant Theology, the “overarching covenant of Grace that incorporates Paedobaptism?

He has said “No” to the above questions when asked. What more should he do?

Blessings,
Chris

[Wayne Smith]

Peter,

Can your read, what Brother Les Puryear has posted on his Blog? Okay I will post it Here for you.

Les Puryear Said:
Therefore, I am going to answer three questions being raised about my beliefs and my leadership as a pastor. This will be my only foray into answering negative charges.

1. I do not support paedo-baptism. I believe that believer's baptism by immersion is the only proper method of baptism. I completely affirm the Baptist Faith and Message 2000.

2. I do not support covenant theology. I completely affirm the Baptist Faith and Message 2000.

Peter, did you understand what Les Said?

Wayne

[jasonk]

Peter, it was not a back door slam. It is simply an observation. Like anyone who has a particular candidate they support, they will always see the good in those they support, and look to find the bad in those they do not. We see it every day in the presidential elections, and we see it in the blog world too. I just would expect better from believers.
Les is a brother in Christ, and a pastor. What's more, he is a fellow Southern Baptist. I would think that given this, you would be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, and allow the elections next month to follow the will of the messengers. Of course you have every right to question what Les meant when he said the things he did. You should question him, and do so thoroughly. And you have, and he has answered those questions forthrightly. But you keep on beating this dead horse, as though Les were the boogey man.
No one has ignored Les' comment about nodding his head in agreement, or whatever it is he said. When I am conversing with someone who is different than me, and they are explaining their point of view, I nod my head in understanding, and even agreement with how they could come to the conclusion they did. But that doesn't mean I agree with it or want to start practicing it. Just offering another point of view.
I agree with Byron. I'd rather have a candidate who has considered the beliefs of others, and chosen to stay with his original position, than one who stays with his position because its always been that way. But that's me.

Katie,
Are you laughing at my comment to make sport of me? Or because you found it to be genuinely funny. I'm not sure.
Realize that I did not say that Methodist baptism is watered down from Catholocism. I said that infant baptism is. Catholics believe that baptism as an infant actually conveys grace on the child, and saves her. Methodists merely view it as a symbol in a ceremony not unlike what we in the SBC do when we have baby dedication. UMC baptism stems from the first century church's practice of sprinkling or pouring water over the heads of converts, a practice that was approved of by the early church fathers.

[Timotheos]

I am wondering...is the baptismal issue (paedo/credo) the sole deal-killer for you Peter, or does Covenant Theology weigh as much as the baptismal issue? I'm guessing that the baptismal issue is the crux of the concern for SB's, but I thought I'd ask about the CT issue as well.

Peace.

[Chris Johnson]

Brother Peter,

Do you have the link to Les' post from a year ago that contained...."You see, personally, I am finding myself more and more amenable to Covenant Theology, including the practice of paedobaptism. I have taken the time to read several books about these beliefs and I find myself nodding my head in agreement with what I am reading. Where does that place me theologically? Right now, I'm not quite sure. I feel like I'm somewhere in a demilitarized zone between baptist and presbyterian."

Thanks Brother,
Chris

[Byron]

I believe Les Puryear gave a sufficient defense.

To me he is a more attractive candidate than without those admissions. This is not because he almost became Presbyterian. It is because he appears to have investigated the matter thoroughly, considered it seriously, and then returned to the credobaptist view on this point. If I knew him personally, and had a friend who had questions in this area, he would be a top referral for this issue to answer questions from a Baptist point of view.

Who better to represent Baptists than someone who has had his credobaptism recently reinforced?

[peter]

JasonK,

You may "choose" to believe as you so wish. The problem is, you "choose" to believe what you apparently want to believe, jasonk, instead of looking at the words written.

Incredibly, you were "forced" look up the "word" as if that would settle everything. Now you confidently conclude:

"There is more than one definition, making it difficult to pin down what Les really meant when he said he was amenable to infant baptism and CT theology."

What's incredible is, Les tells you what he means by it by saying he nodded his head in agreement with it--an obvious fact you continue to ignore.

So, you "choose" to say:

"I can choose to think the worst, or choose to think the best, giving him the benefit of the doubt...If I had a particular candidate in mind that I wanted to see elected, and that candidate was not Les, I would probably choose to think the worst. But since I do not, I choose to assume that he meant that he had looked into it, determined it was not for him, and moved on"(italics mine).

Even more, jasonk, are you "choosing" to offer a backdoor slam to those of us who are questioning Les Puryear at this point by suggesting that since we have a particular candidate in mind that we "want elected", that we would probably choose to think the worst of Les' words? Is this what you are suggesting, jasonk? I'm just curious.

Katie,

I did not notice what you noted till you pointed it out. That is funny! Nor am I ever bored on this blog, I must concede.

Grace. With that, I am...

Peter

[volfan007]

Katie,

That was not all that made me laugh.

David :)

[Katie]

OK, the funniest thing I've read in this thread is when Jason referred to Methodist baptism as a "watered down version of what the Catholic church does." Did anyone else laugh at that too?

Baptism is watering down! Get it?

Katie

[jasonk]

Okay, you forced me to do this. I didn't want to, but you made me do it. I actually went and opened up the dictionary, and looked up the word "amenable."
There is more than one definition, making it difficult to pin down what Les really meant when he said he was amenable to infant baptism and CT theology. Since I have never met him, and don't know his heart, I have two choices. I can choose to think the worst, or choose to think the best, giving him the benefit of the doubt. If I had a particular candidate in mind that I wanted to see elected, and that candidate was not Les, I would probably choose to think the worst. But since I do not, I choose to assume that he meant that he had looked into it, determined it was not for him, and moved on.
I am sure that many prominent and successful Southern Baptist pastors have looked into leaving the SBC. Its not as if he gave thought to becoming a Buddhist monk, or a Rabbi. He did not consider abandoning the Christian faith. He looked at the Presbyterian church, for goodness sake.
When I was a younger man, and still in vocational ministry, I became friends with the pastor of the local Presbyterian church. He told me about his salary and benefits, and how he was considered to have worked for the same employer for fifteen years, whereas in SBC life, every time a person goes to a new church, its like going to a new employer, even though they are doing the same type of work. I was a bit envious of their system. Honestly, in some ways it is better than ours. But when I stepped back and looked at the overall picture, I decided it was not for me, even though I could see why they believe what they do, and respect them for it.
Ron, I do not know of any 1st century church tradition that teach transubstantiation, universalism, etc. Yet there is evidence that supports baptism that is not by immersion. It is a far leap from infant baptism and CT theology to universalism and transubstantiation.

[peter lumpkins]

jasonK,

If one were just dealing with "amenable" and nothing more, you might make your point. However, this is simply not the case.

Les clearly said he was not only "amenable" to both CT in general but specifically cited baptizing babies, "nodding his head in agreement" Nor does your very softened view of "amenable" square with contemplating seriously taking a PCA church.

The defenses for Les' words thus far are, candidly, lame at best. They all point to circumstances that demand ignoring much of what Les indicated.

Give it up, bro. Or get a an argument that deals with the entire corpus of Les' words.

With that, I am...

Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Debbie,

The charges we make we do so with accompanying evidence. You show up making charges but do not offer evidence. In my view, that's slander.

Do not come back here making charges unless you have evidence. That's the only caution you'll get.

With that, I am...

Peter

[Ron P.]

Jason,

If I said I was amenable to transubstantiation, or amenable to universalism, or amenable to Docetism etc... one would rightly conclude that I was a heretic. If one states that they are amenable to CT and paedobaptism, one would rightly conclude that such a person was not a Biblical Baptist.

Ron P.

[Debbie Kaufman]

Peter: I have made a contribution by saying that what you are selling here is a bad bill of goods. False. As false as Jim's comment. Les Puryear is my own personal choice. I have no idea who Ben and Wade would endorse, I hope it is Les, but I have not talked to them about any of this. Before the rumor mill begins. In my own personal opinion, having talked to no one, nor would I, Les is the candidate I support. Jim, don't read more into my posts that what I write. Or my comments for that matter. We are Christians and I believe in telling the truth not making things up as one goes along. For the record, yes I am mad. Things like this tend to make me so.

[Jim]

Well, at least now we know who is Enid's Anointed One.

http://debbie-thoughtsof.blogpot.com/2008/05/i-support-les-puryears-run-for-sbc.html

[jasonk]

Ron, doesn't amenable simply mean "to be open to" something? Like, you can be amenable to something, meaning you are open to testing it and determining whether it is an authentic thing to believe. It is almost like the New Testament admonition for us to "test the spirits," in my mind.
No one, not me, and from what little I have read, not Les, is questioning the doctrine of believer's baptism.

[peter lumpkins]

Ron.

Thanks for your forcefulness...

Debbie,

Please. If you desire to make a contribution, do so. But if all you want to do is complain, take it elsewhere, thank you very much.

With that, I am...

Peter

[Debbie Kaufman]

I shouldn't even read this stuff, but I do. Have any of you read Les' response because I can't tell by these latest comments. I would suggest all who read these comments read Les' response. He's not lying, he's not hiding from it, he's not doublespeaking. Come on people, when is this type of yellow journalism going to end?

[Ron P.]

Jason,

Being "amenable to CT and paedobaptism" and his consideration of leaving the SBC for the PCA does not disqualify him from serving as SBC President? Are you serious?

Peter,

You can add your quote on Les' blog to go here too:

Here we are on this thread debating whether or not believer's baptism by immersion only stands as a valid criteria by which to rule out a candidate for the President of the SBC. Congradulations brothers: we've just made history.

I too am absolutely flabbergasted that Baptists are having to defend Biblical Baptism within our own ranks. We may even have a nominee for President of the SBC who is amenable to paedobaptism. Our forefathers must be turning over in their graves as we speak.

Ron P.

[jasonk]

Hey, its up, its down, I can't figure it out.

Here's the deal, David, as I see it. I do not think of sprinkling as baptism, because I believe baptism has a specific purpose, and Jesus had in mind a particular picture he wanted to display. If it is referring to death, burial, and resurrection, I've never seen a dead guy get buried by someone throwing a little dirt on his head. Baptism by any other means than immersion loses its significance, in my opinion.
However, I recognize that greater minds than this have weighed in on the topic, and I respect that. Several of my favorite people are Methodist pastors/theologians, and they make a good case. One of their justifications for sprinkling are first century writings to the churches in north Africa, who had no bodies of water in which to baptize converts. They were told by early church fathers that out of convenience, they could sprinkle or pour what water they had over the converts. Now, at a Southern Baptist Seminary, I was taught that their instructions were followed by the instruction that this method of baptism was only until they found a body of water in which to immerse them. I'm not sure that made it into UMC doctrine.
My point is that our brothers and sisters in the UMC do things differently, and I don't have a problem with it, but would not be comfortable doing it that way myself. When they use water to dedicate babies, to me it causes confusion in the minds of those in attendance, who might believe that this baptism secures an eternity in Heaven for these babies.
Like Les, I checked it all out, liked it okay, and could see where they are coming from. But ultimately, I had a hard time letting go of my roots, and came back home where I was more comfortable theologically. To the spirit of the original post, this doesn't preclude Les from serving as SBC president, in my opinion.

[volfan007]

Jason,

There must be something wrong with your computer. I can still see your comment fine. And, no, I dont see sprinkling as a real baptism. And, I used to be Methodist.

David

[jasonk]

David,
Of course, I do understand baptism. I understand that it involves immersion, not sprinkling, although I can understand why those who sprinkle prefer that method. I just happen to disagree with it.
So if you believe that baptism is by immersion, then what the UMC does is not really baptism at all. They are just using water to drive home a point.
I think that what they do is a watered down version of what the Catholic church does when they baptize infants. But I also believe that what we do when he have baby dedications is a watered down version of Catholic tradition. I'm not sure that there is any precedent in Scripture that calls for a church to hold baby dedication services, but we do it anyway.
I appreciate the spirit of your question, David. However, it appears as if Peter has with grace taken down my comment, for whatever reason, and so the conversation is not welcome here. Oh well.

[volfan007]

Jason K,

When you make comments like this one: "They make it quite clear that this act does not save these children from hell. It is merely symbolic, and their prayer for these children is that God would protect them and keep them until they reach the place where they, for themselves, can trust in Christ to save them." It really concerns me.

My friend, do you believe that anyone in the SBC thinks that the Methodists baptise babies to keep them from hell? Do you not understand that what we believe about baptism as Southern Baptists still makes us apalled that they would baptise babies for any reason whatsoever? If they are just dedicating babies, then why do they have to throw baptism into the mix? Why cant they just dedicate them? Why throw water over the babies head and make him cry?

Jason, when you make statements like this it makes me wonder if you even understand baptism? Do you not see how important believers baptism is? And, that most paedobaptists(Presbyterians) look upon it as a symbollic act of faith for the future salvation of that child, while Methodists look upon it as a baby dedication. But, I'm sure that some do look upon infant baptism as saving that child's soul. Do Catholics believe that? Episcopalians? I dont really know if they even look upon it as a saving act...do they?

But, the point I'm trying to make is...for you to try to excuse infant baptism as not that big of a deal because it's just a baby dedication is part of the problem in Baptist life today.

David

ps. I was not saying this in a mean, nasty way. I was not yelling at you, nor at anyone else. I was simply pointing out some facts and issues from your statement. Grace, Bro.

[jasonk]

Well I had some great comments to make regarding this post, ones that I thought would add well to your conversation. But after reading all the others, I have completely forgotten what they are. Dang!
I will say, Peter, that I agree with you (shock) that Frank Cox has some of the best qualifications, due to the fact that he followed the advice of R.G. Lee. "If you boys want to pastor a big church, go out and build you one." Good for him.
Second, I will say that I would absolutely vote for Les, even knowing what he has written regarding baptizing babies and such. That's because it shows that he is open to what others believe, and hasn't just developed a theology based on what he's always been taught. For three years I attended a UMC church, and they baptized babies. I was very uncomfortable with the process, but when I stopped long enough to listen, they say the same things we Baptists say when we have baby dedication services. They make it quite clear that this act does not save these children from hell. It is merely symbolic, and their prayer for these children is that God would protect them and keep them until they reach the place where they, for themselves, can trust in Christ to save them. Pretty nice. Its just a different way of doing things, and I can respect and appreciate them for it, even if I disagree with their methodology.
I have a friend who pastors one of the largest SBC churches in Oklahoma (no, not him). He and I had a long conversation one day over Clark Pinnock, a great theologian who became a universalist. My friend said to me during that conversation, "I wish it were true. I wish that everyone gets into Heaven." Then he said that he had searched the Scriptures for evidence, but he has not ever found it. He can see why universalists believe the way they do, but ultimately he believes the Bible teaches otherwise. I'm glad he has ventured out and looked into the other side, and found the SBC more adequate for him, rather than just drinking the SBC kool aid...[rest of comment deleted by administrator]

[Camel Rider]

Peter and other readers....
I would like to retract my previous statements about Dr. Jerry Vines. They were misinformed personal views and were not appropriate for discussion on any blog.

I have corresponded with Dr. Vines today and he has graciously explained the circumstances of my misperceptions. I have asked for his forgiveness and he has willingly and graciously responded with forgiveness. Please disregard my statements and do not allow them to reflect on his testimony or character.

Again, I apologize for allowing my flesh to show like it has. Peter, thank you for your wisdom and your willingness to see this resolved. I ask for each of your forgiveness and I hope you will allow me a place at this blog table in the future.
The Camel Rider

[volfan007]

Steve,

:)

I'm trying to turn over a new leaf. This is the new and improved "Volfan007."

Really, I want the academic guys in here to be proud of me. After all, when you have seminary professors in here like Dr. Caner, and Dr. Yarnell, and Dr. Barber, and all the other Dr.'s and academic people coming into the blog world....well, I just figured I needed to be more grammatically correct.

But, if you could hear me talk, you'd still hear the Southern in me.

David :)

[peter lumpkins]

James,

May the good Lord give you a great day to serve Him. Grace.

With that, I am...

Peter

[Rev.]

Okay, I'll really be quiet after this, Peter. First, a personal anecdote. After speaking at a conference, a friend of mine commended the presentation but asked if I knew how I "came across" on one point. He didn't question my motives. I told him what I was thinking and feeling on the point and then he said, "Do you realize that's not the way you came across?" My tone was distinct from my motive, Peter. Again, I've not attempted to slight your "inner life."

Second, yesterday I was preparing for a presentation last night. As I was going back over it, I edited several parts. Why? I thought about what the words conveyed, and I wanted to insure that a more positive tone was presented. Was the previous, unedited work evil and malicious? No. Was I a culprit for what I had prepared? No. I just realized I could change a few words here and there and make it come across in a more positive tone.

I promise, Peter, no more from me on this particular post. Hope you understand what I've written within this comment - understanding that I'm not questioning your "inner life."

[peter lumpkins]

James,

Thanks. I think you did come to discuss the post. The problem is, James, you left the post a good long spell ago and started talking about "condescension" "tone" "less than brotherly" etc etc. I became the issue. It's called technically "bait and switch".

James, what you fail to understand is that "tone" "condescension" etc. is undeniably all about one's "inner life." Speak as you wish otherwise, my brother, those are non-tangibles criticisms. They are identifiable by subjective analysis.

The canons of logic do not apply; nor does Scripture--unless you start talking inner issues. That's the way I see it, James.

Now, I trust we are settled on this one.

Grace always. With that, I am...

Peter

[James]

Peter:

Just a few thoughts and then I'll be quiet on this post...

First, What do my blog posts have to do with anything? What do my comments over here on your other posts have to do with anything? I was trying to point out that I'm not here trying to be mean or pick a fight with you, Peter. I'm trying to discuss this as your brother, not your foe. Simply that.

Second, is it possible to have a valid concern put forth in a way that could be more tactful?

Third, I told you repeatedly that I understand your concerns on the paedobaptism issue, Peter. I've not denied that.

Fourth, (in regard to your "inner life") I stated before, "I've not addressed your motives, or tried to make it seem as though you are some evil madman who has nothing better to do than to pick on unsuspecting victims. I don't know your motives, although my guess is that you are concerned that Baptists remain just that - Baptists. If that is your motive, I commend it." I'm not trying to paint you as an evil culprit, Peter. Not at all. I did ask if written pieces have a tone to them, and I believe they do.

Last thing, I will confess like Camel Rider that I was tired last night as well. It may be that my thoughts haven't been as coherent as normal due to an overly busy week. Nonetheless, I've not stated anything out of malice or in an attempt to make you appear malicious. Honestly. My main concern has been the way we deal with each other as Christians.

[peter lumpkins]

James,

First, James, I have read your blog. Not thoroughly but truly. I do not know what that has to do with our exchange here though.

Secondly, I did read the comments you penned, I assure. I addressed them--them--not you, James, in a straightforward manner. Yet, you get personal by injecting subjective accusations my alleged "tone" into the conversation. Or, even worse, my "less than brotherly" actions toward Les. Why? All because I did not consult with Les about employing--both legitimately and accurately--his public weblog. James, this simply makes no moral sense. Period. Please go argue that point elsewhere.

Thirdly, you write: "it's not well taken because Les has not embraced paedobaptism". Suppose the President of the SBC were contemplating embracing paedobaptism? Suppose the President of the SBC nodded his head in agreement with paedobaptism? Is this not something with which we should be concerned? Please, James.

I realize you like Les. But if you're going to publicly defend someone or something, have a basis upon which to stand, a legitimate point for which to contend. Presently, your feet are firmly planted in midair.

Nor will I concede the way I have addressed this issue is impolite--"If you have legitimate concerns because of his struggle being recent, fine, but there is a way to address those concerns politely."

I just don't buy it James. Period. In addition, the continued focus that I am the culprit--now you imply I'm impolite--gives further evidence that this post is rock solid. Since nothing that can legitimately be criticized, create something something that can--"tone" "politeness" "less than brotherly" "less than brotherly tone" "courtesy" "condescension" and on and on one could go.

As for "being defensive" I am unsure what you mean, James. Frankly, it does not matter really. Think as you wish about me. I'm much too old to lose sleep about that.

But if you continue to come here, my brother, come and challenge the ideas. I will engage you in those. I am no longer interested in what you think of my inner life. Period.

Grace. With that, I am...

Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Camel,

It's rare to have open and public admission to inner conviction. Thank you. Forgiven, my brother.

Grace ever. With that, I am...

Peter

[Camel Rider]

Peter and other readers....
I've tasted of the bitter sweet drink....I know it's flavor well....conviction. I ask for your forgiveness...it was late...I was tired....I gave into the old man and for this I am sorry. I recognize that it's ok for me to have my opinions about Jerry Vines but that this was not the proper place to voice them.

Dr. Vines, if you read this blog or these comments....please forgive me for misusing this platform in a harmful way.
The Camel Rider

[Steve]

Brethren and cistern, I am deeply deeply disappointed.
Peter...I am not disappointed in the tenor or substance of the post..
I am not disappointed that you guys are holding this conversation so graciouly and thoughtfully...
I am deeply deeply disappointed that you have not noticed that.. not once... but twice.. yes twice.. yes twice .. 2 times.. David, Volfan has commented using punctuation. Truly.. He has correctly punctuated his post!
Now this can oly lead me to conclusion that this is not truly the true David Volfan of Tennessee.. but some strange substitute.
Peter.. can you please check this gentleman's credentials,
Steve

[Ron P.]

Peter,

The substance of your post has not been addressed. That a person running for President of the SBC clearly stated in a public blog his leanings towards paedobaptism and sympathizing with one who left for a PCA church is alarming. Note for Wayne: It is alarming because he is running for SBC President. If he was not, it would not matter, except to his local church and whether they know he is amenable to covenant theology and paedobaptism as he stated. We would not be concerned at all about it, except that he is running for a post to lead Southern Baptists - who Biblically reject paedobaptism.

Les coyly dismisses any such questions on his blog today because he states that his beliefs are in line with the BFM2000, does not believe in paedobaptism nor covenant theology. These statements on his blog today are in direct contradiction of recent statements that he has made and you quote here. Yet, he is not going to answer any questions about it. I for one, find his post today and his refusal to discuss his previous writings, to be as problematic as his previously stated views. He unwittingly presents himself as a man of great contradiction and one lacking conviction. How are we to know what he really believes? Has his views changed because he is running for SBC President? If not, what has led him to re-embrace Biblical doctrine regarding baptism?

Les may not wish to answer these questions, but if he wants to be President, he must. Otherwise, he should immediately withdraw his name from nomination. This is not some minor "tertiary" doctrine. Many of our forefathers died precisely for this issue. Yet, Les is unwilling to discuss it.

Peter, Southern Baptists owe you a great debt for bringing this very important doctrinal issue out!

Ron P.

[Byron]

Peter:

Yes, it is. Please understand, though, I am not political. I have no idea what an SBC president actually does.

I just read Les Puryear's blog and his answers satisfy me. My concerns over personal doctrinal convictions were genuine. I said I would be "perfectly fine" with a paedobaptist SBC president, but am forced to retract that and say that while I would personally allow it, that some good could even come from it, it would probably not be ideal, even if the person is a fellow believer in Christ.

So I am going to have to retract my full endorsement of the idea.

[James]

Ron - I understand that blogging and commenting invites public response. I'm not questioning Peter's right to respond publicly to what Les has stated. Is it necessary to consult with a person? No, quite frankly, but it sure wouldn't have hurt when Peter stopped by Les' blog earlier to do so, would it? Would it hurt to try to discuss these things in a manner which might provide light and yet keep down the heat?

Peter - you only know me through blogging and commenting, so you don't really know much about me, granted. I think if you ever took time to read through multiple posts on my blog, if you should ever care to do so (and not that I'm necessarily recommending it), you would find that I have a concern for Christian unity.

Read back through my comments here, brother. I've never said there is no question about whether or not a real issue exists regarding paedobaptism. I haven't asked you to defend your position, Peter. Several times I've tried to point out that I understand your concern.

Why were your points not well taken? I've explained the Page/ Calvinism point clearly. As to the other, it's not well taken because Les has not embraced paedobaptism. If you have legitimate concerns because of his struggle being recent, fine, but there is a way to address those concerns politely.

I know Les is the one who has announced his nomination for the presidency of the SBC. Does that, and should it, bring with it a great deal of scrutiny? Certainly. But it doesn't mean that the scrutiny should come across in a less than brotherly tone.

Don't think, Peter, that I'm employing a "favorite strategy" because I can find nothing to criticize in your post. Don't you remember the comment I made regarding Frank Cox? Don't you recall other comments on other posts I've made? Have I been hostile? Does it seem I've come around here just trying to pick a fight?

I've not addressed your motives, or tried to make it seem as though you are some evil madman who has nothing better to do than to pick on unsuspecting victims. I don't know your motives, although my guess is that you are concerned that Baptists remain just that - Baptists. If that is your motive, I commend it.

I can read, though, and I can pick up "tones" in written words. If you want to continue to be defensive, just as I want to continue to have an opinion on your tone, then by all means... (Can you discern my tone, Peter?)

[peter lumpkins]

Ron,

I welcome the interjection, brother. Believe me!

With that, I am...

Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Byron,

I have to concede, I don't understand what you are trying to say. I assume you are saying "It's O.K. to be President of the SBC and hold to baptizing infants." Is this your position?

With that, I am...

Peter

[peter lumpkins]

James,

First, why this is becoming about *me* is interesting. The question is whether or not a real issue exists when one is openly confused about baptizing babies. Know I am through defending that concern to you, James.

Secondly, if you do not see the difference between "your points are not well taken" and "I'm not even saying...your concerns have no validity" I have nothing else to say about that.

Third, James, each one of the questions I asked were questions from me, not quotations from you. Please keep the distinctions clear.

Fourth, James, you're assuming this is the first time this is ever been brought up. I assure it is not.

Fifth, try as you may to make this a deficiency in my conduct--"I am saying that the tone of your post comes across in a way that is less than brotherly"--my brother, I am decidedly NOT the one announcing for President of the SBC.

Sixth, James, I've learned after two years, a favorite strategy of those who can really find nothing to criticize in a post or comment is to go for the intangible--the "tone" "attitude" "heart" "motive" etc, etc. that cannot be measured.

I simply say, James, if you have your opinion about my "tone" great. I encourage you hold it if that's what you wish, my brother.

Grace. With that, I am...

Peter

[Ron P.]

James,

If I may interject here...

It was Les that blogged about his views. Blogging and commenting on blogs invariably invites public responses. Peter has publicly responded to a public blog post by Les. Nothing more. It would be no different than reviewing a book or published article of a person. There is no need to consult the person privately about something that they have publicly written.

Blessings,

Ron P.

[James]

David - you did, in fact, misread me. That second part of the sentence was not aimed at you.

Peter - no need for the condescension, brother. I knew you were speaking of me when you said, "What's a man to think?" I was just using that phrase as a lead-in to my reply. And just what is my blatant inconsistency? Believing you have valid concerns *and* believing you should weigh the presentation of your words carefully so that they come across in a Christlike manner?

Why not speak with Les, Peter? He stated on his blog that he does not hold to paedobaptism and that he affirms the BFM 2000 fully. Why is speaking to him (at least via e-mail) such an issue for you? Why not at least give him the courtesy of asking, "So, bro, are you still struggling with these issues; or are you settled in your credobaptist convictions?" At least then you could politely write something to the effect of, "Les has settled this issue, yet I'm concerned because his struggles on the issue were so recent." Why do this? Because it would be polite, courteous, even Christlike.

Nowhere, absolutely nowhere Peter, have I accused you of taking Les' words out of context, skewing his words, etc. So then, what's the point? The point is to deal with Les as a brother in Christ, not as a mere blog entry to be skewered for his doctrinal struggle. Again, I'm not saying you can't (or shouldn't) have concerns. I am saying that the tone of your post comes across in a way that is less than brotherly.

[Byron]

I meant that I have no illusions that a multitude of people would NOT strongly dissent to it.

[Byron]

Peter:

I stand corrected concerning my conclusion. Thank you. I took your words to be directed towards me. I should have asked.

I am not sure what your point is in the following words. I can confess to being troubled by Les Puryear's stance on Baptism (which I know only from what you have written as I have not researched it further), being less than solidly credobaptist. I affrim that credobaptism is the ideal, and that I believe paedobaptism is doctrinally in error. That alone would not stop me, if I had the power and desire to do so, from allowing (or causing) a dedicated paedobaptist to become president of the SBC. In fact, having someone from the PCA side become SBC president, and having someone from the SBC side take on the highest PCA authority, would be perfectly fine by me, though I have no illusions that a multitude of people would strongly dissent to it.

[peter lumpkins]

James,

Unfortunately, you skipped right over the point I made, James. Let me try this again:

[James] wrote: "Your points are not well taken in regard to Les."

Now [James] write: "I'm not even saying you shouldn't have concerns, or that your concerns have no validity." What's a man [that is, Peter] to think?

The "what's a man to think" pertained to your blatant inconsistency, my brother.

As for "Rather than talking about Les you should talk with him." being "fair enough" I have to dissent, I'm afraid. What's talking have to do with the words that are written? Am I taking the words out of context? Am I skewing his words? Am I misstating his words? Am I misrepresenting his words?

If any of the above is true, go for it. Embarrass me. Show the entire blogging world I've misrepresented Les. But if I have not misrepresented him, misstated him, skewed his words, contextually warped his meaning, what please is the point?

I have to also object to a perfectly moral and acceptable discussion about what someone is in print saying being confused with talking about that person in an unacceptable, immoral manner. That is what you appear to be doing, James--at least that's the sense I get from your words.

Grace. With that, I am...

Peter

[volfan007]

Byron,

Someone who was a paedo-baptist would certainly be excluded from being SBC President. Certainly. No doubt about it.

David

[volfan007]

Rev.,

You said,"David is right in wanting to hear some answers from Les, but it is not right to accuse someone of departing from the Baptist faith when they have not done so." Are you saying that I accused Les of departing from the Baptist faith? Because I didnt say anything of the sort. Or, did I misread you?

Nor, do I think, that Peter was being accusatory in this post. He was asking honest questions about someone wanting to be President of our SBC.

Scott, you nailed it right on top of the head of the nail. What a clear way of explaining. Thanks.

Wayne, oooh, never mind.

David

[peter lumpkins]

Byron,

These are your words: "However, then you say, "Unless, of course, we are absolutely so confused about being Baptist these days that even one who entertains baptizing babies is still considered a rock-solid Baptist." I said and assume no such thing."

Your quotation is accurate. You conclusion is inaccurate. Where in the comment did I remotely suggest those were your words?

As your statement that "even if someone were completely paedobaptist in conviction, I would not consider that alone a disqualification for the office of president of the SBC", yes, Byron. I do agree. That is one crazy statement.

In fact, what you denied you said in the former statement you turn right around and affirm virtually the identical thing in the latter.

Whew! With that, I am...

Peter

[Lee]

I can't say that I remember the last "small church" pastor to serve as President of the SBC. None since the 60's I think. And 5.9% is better than everyone since the CR began except Jim Henry and Frank Page.

I agree, those are not the only qualifications. But in a denomination where the average worship attendance is about 130 souls,maybe it is about time we elected a small church pastor.

[Byron]

Peter, regarding your first two sentences to me, understood, and well taken.

However, then you say, "Unless, of course, we are absolutely so confused about being Baptist these days that even one who entertains baptizing babies is still considered a rock-solid Baptist." I said and assume no such thing. My question was, how much does it ultimately matter?

The fact, I take it from your writing, that Les Puryear is not decidedly credobaptist, does indeed bother me. David Worley is right to ask questions concerning this and expect answers. However, even if someone were completely paedobaptist in conviction, I would not consider that alone a disqualification for the office of president of the SBC. Call me crazy. Maybe I am. But somehow I think church autonomy and the believer's priesthood are more important than the political office of a religious organization, invented by man, whose history can be traced back to a general calendar date. It would not be a disaster for the SBC. In fact, it might even be a good thing, and help those in the SBC to embrace their brothers and sisters in the faith who are outside the Baptist sphere of religious life.

When we get to heaven, will it even matter if we were SBC or PCA?

[James]

What's a man to think, Peter? He's to think, "I should speak with Les and see what he is thinking, to see if he has resolved this issue, if my concerns remain valid."

Rather than talking about Les you should talk with him.

Fair enough?

[peter]

Scott,

Thanks, Scott for the clarity. Now if you and I can only convince James :^)

With that, I am...

Peter

[peter]

Dear Wayne,

No...

James,

You wrote: "Your points are not well taken in regard to Les."

Now you write: "I'm not even saying you shouldn't have concerns, or that your concerns have no validity." What's a man to think?

As for Les embracing paedobaptism, I have not stated. This was my concern in the post:

"Would you vote for one as President of the SBC who is amenable to baptizing babies, who nods his head in agreement with it? Would you? Would you vote for President one who, theologically, is between baptist and presbyterian? Would you?"

It's the absolute confusion, James, that should haunt us. Are we non-negotiably Baptist or are we not? Why would we desire or vote for a man confused at this point? Why would you?

With that, I am...

Peter

[scott shaffer]

Peter,

Exactly. That is why I said he made an "attempt".

Wayne,

I don't think you get it. There is nothing wrong with wrestling with doctrinal convictions, or in this case Baptist convictions. Whether that person should be the president of the Southern Baptist Convention is an entirely different matter. There is hardly anything belittling or accusatory in wondering if this disqualifies Les. It's kind of like voting for someone to be the president of the National Rifle Association who has recently stated that he isn't sure if the constitution gives Americans the right to bear arms.

[Rev.]

Peter:

It's not that I misunderstood what Les wrote. I understood his words perfectly. My point is that, at this point, he has not embraced paedobaptism. I also stated that David was right to ask for Les to clarify his present position. I'm not even saying you shouldn't have concerns, or that your concerns have no validity. I am saying, however, that Les has *not* embraced paedobaptism at this point and should be able to speak for himself. Perhaps you should ask him for an interview.

For you to imply that I'm not agreeing that believer's baptism is a non-negotiable, or that I'm defending a position which effectively denies believer's baptism as a non-negotiable, is unfair.

As per Page's book, I'm glad to hear about your unlovely critique, but that misses the point. My point was that Page has said some pointed things about "Calvinism," yet has worked graciously with "Calvinists." Les' comments on the issue do not disqualify him from working graciously with non-Calvinists.

[smith.we]

Peter,
Ash the Hol Spirit to Help you Read my comments again and tell me what I said.
Wayne

[peter]

Scott,

Thanks for the tip. Ignoring what one has written is not the same as answering questions pertaining to what one has written. Les did not say squat about what he actually wrote.

Wayne,

Again, I don't know what you are refering to.

Grace. With that, I am...

Peter

[smith.we]

Peter,

If it was okay for Dr Wayne Grudem to wrestle with excepting paedo baptism into a Church and then changing His Mind, what is wrong with Brother Les doing the Same if he indeed did do this.
Why are you Peter Lumpkin accruing either one of these fine Christians who are of the Baptist Persuasion? To belittle one is too belittle Both of these Brothers.

Wayne

[scott shaffer]

Peter,

It seems Les has read your post and has made an attempt to answer some of your concerns.

[peter]

James,

Thanks for logging on.  If you would, James, please point out precisely what part of this is not clear:

"...I am finding myself more and more amenable to Covenant Theology, including the practice of paedobaptism...I find myself nodding my head in agreement with what I am reading.  Where does that place me theologically? ...I'm somewhere...between baptist and presbyterian."

Nor is this all that Les spoke.  He is on record entertaining the thought of pastoring a PCA church.  All of this, James, in the last year or so.

For my part, the President of the Southern Baptist Convention needs not to be confused concerning the nature of believer's baptism by immersion. 

Are we so decidedly confused as Baptists that we cannot even agree that believer's baptism by immersion is positively nonnegotiable when it comes to being Baptist?  I simply do not even understand a defense of such, my brother James.  Sorry.

As for Frank Page's book, I actually wrote an unlovely critique of it.  I lost an interview with him because I was a bad, bad little boy :^).

Grace always.  With that, I am...

Peter

[peter]

Wayne,

I haven't the faintest notion what you mean. I asked a question and got something I cannot discipher...

Camel,

I understand if you're an M, about withholding your identity. I hope you understand that without facts that I can check, I am withholding your privilege of criticizing Jerry Vines. If I don't I am participating in slander with you...

Byron,

This is not about Calvinist vs. NonCalvinist. Rather it is about Baptist vs. NonBaptist.

Unless, of course, we are absolutely so confused about being Baptist these days that even one who entertains baptizing babies is still considered a rock-solid Baptist.

Grace all. With that, I am...

Peter

[Rev.]

In defense of Les, he hasn't come to the position of agreement with paedobaptism. He has pondered it, and quite seriously and quite recently, it would seem. That is quite different, however, from embracing it. At the point he departs from the BFM 2000 he is disqualified from serving as the president of the SBC. David is right in wanting to hear some answers from Les, but it is not right to accuse someone of departing from the Baptist faith when they have not done so.

As to what he has stated about "Arminianism," don't forget that Frank Page has made some rather pointed remarks in public about "man-made" theology and such in regard to "Calvinism." Heck, he even went so far as to write a book against it ('Trouble with the TULIP'). That has not prevented him from co-laboring faithfully and peacefully with "Calvinists," has it?

Your points are not well taken in regard to Les.

You do make some good points regarding Frank Cox, Peter. I applaud the fact that Pastor Cox has served the same congregation faithfully for nearly three decades. He appears to be a very worthy candidate.

[smith.we]

Peter,

I know you are from a different school than I am. I am a Food for Thought Man as well as many other Christians I Know.
I would not refuse the Partaking of the Lord’s Supper by Any Member of a PCA Church if I were a Pastor. I have found them (PCA people) to be less BackBiting than Menbers of the Baptist Church. We fellowshipped for 10 yrs with Dr John Frame and Dr Edmund Clowney of whom Dr Wayne Grudem, gave Credits to in His Book as being His Mentors. There are many Members of the PCA that would Pass the Baptist Test as Born Again Christians.
Peter I do believe you misread everything about Brother Les Puryear. Just like Brother Dr Frank Page, Les is a Christian with the Baptist Denomination. He Said You Said is kind of Poison within the Body of Christ don’t you think Peter.

Wayne

[Byron]

David, I agree. I have to also confess I have not studied any of the candidates. I'm not trying to excuse my ignorance, however. I'm sure every candidate out there has good points to be considered. All have strengths and weaknesses, and every voter has reasons for voting the way they will. And though I want answers to the questions, how much would it truly matter? I ask this in light of church autonomy and the priesthood of the believer. I am NOT saying there no spiritual consequences to error, please understand.

[volfan007]

Byron,

I guess the question is...should a man who is wrestling with the issues of being a Southern Baptist or a Presbyterian, and with the issues of baptising babies, be someone who is picked to direct the SBC? I mean, we would all agree with you in here about Presbyterians who know the Lord and love the Lord being Brothers and Sisters in Christ. But, should a Presbyterian be President of the SBC?

I know that Les is a Southern Baptist right now, but the very fact that he was waffling on these issues not too long ago would make me want to hear his answers to these questions before I voted for him. Would you not agree?

David

PS. Just to be straight up and straight forward, I will probably be voting for Johnny Hunt.

[Byron]

Perhaps Les Puryear should leave the SBC and become PCA. I do not know. Perhaps one day he will, but I bet it will depend on if/how his beliefs on baptism change in the future.

I don't have a vote in this one way or the other, officially. And I consider paedobaptism to be doctrinal error (I'm credobaptist, and affirm "Believer's Baptism" alone). However, I consider my PCA brethren to be brothers and sisters in Christ, because there are only two kinds of people in the world: those who belong to God, and those who do not. I wish Les Puryear was stronger on credobaptism, but I affirm his Reformed views, and though I like Frank Cox (and said so, here), I have to take note that Mohler is out of the running and pull for Mr. Puryear.

Go, Les Puryear, Go!

[peter]

All,

If you haven't clicked on Doug's name in the "link" section, don't miss it!!!  In fact, just click  here and it'll take you where Doug wants you to go.

Thanks Doug for a delightful look at Jerry Vines.  Grace.  With that, I am...

Peter

[peter]

Wayne,

The chief naysayer here. I ask one question of you and one alone: do you agree that we should consider a man for President of the SBC who is not only openly amenable and accepting of those who baptize babies but is also on record saying he is open to accepting a pastorate in the PCA? Do you?

With that, I am...

Peter

[Doug in Memphis]

Camel Rider,

Seriously, how silly can you be? I would gather that there are thousands upon thousands of people in Jacksonville alone who would strongly disagree with your silly pot-shot.

Just because YOU personally don't like someone and disagree with them for whatever reason, doesn't make your accusations true. And according to the article linked on my name, they knew quite well who he was. And ordering the same thing every single day and they know what to expect, now how can that be considered a difficult customer?

Get over yourself, Camel.

http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/012806/met_vines.shtml

[smith.we]

Peter and all Naysayer,

If you want to read something from a very Intelligent Baptist read this Article,
at

http://nathanafinn.wordpress.com/2008/05/12/attention-southern-baptists-there-are-no-more-secrets/#comments

[peter]

Camel,

Oh, yes. I agree. He is such a prude. And as you say, very snotty. Why think of it: he never built a relationship with your staff!

I'd bet a Starbucks myself he's never witnessed to anybody or built a relationship with a single person outside his tweeny-weeny church he pastored in Jax.
No wonder FBCJax completely plateaued during his tenure as Pastor and almost died! Jerry Vines was just too snotty to care. Besides that, he's not Calvinist and surely not cool enough to be emergent.

Yes, siree, camel. You've got his number, I'd say.

With that, I am...

Peter

[Ron P.]

Camel,

Sounds like you failed to establish a relationship too. Did you talk to him about this? Did you follow the Biblical standard for doing so? You have sinned by writing what you have put here with your gossip. You therefore lack credibility.

Ron P.

[peter]

Ron,

Thanks Ron. I couldn't be more agreeable...

David,

Yor are correct. Even secular critics indicate Vines' message "The Baptist and His Bible" was one of the most influential sermons of the 20th century.

Grace. With that, I am...

Peter