« Bart Barber: About the Association of Convictional Baptists | Main | Alcohol: Abstinence = Freedom »
Interview with Pastor Les Puryear
Posted by SBC Today | May 21, 2008
Today we present an interview with Les Puryear, pastor of Lewisville Baptist Church in Lewisville, North Carolina. Les is one of six men who will be nominated to succeed Dr. Frank Page as president of the Southern Baptist Convention at the annual meeting next month in Indianapolis. The other candidates are (in alphabetical order):
- Frank Cox
- Wiley Drake
- Johnny Hunt
- William Wagner
- Avery Willis
Tim Rogers conducted this interview in person in Les’s office in Lewisville. The variations you may notice in the volume are the result of some equalization of volume that was necessary.
Tomorrow we plan to post an interview with Pastor Wiley Drake of California. It is our hope that these interviews have been helpful to our readers as we approach this important decision in the life of our convention.
Les Puryear Interview: Topics: Audio, Interviews, SBC |
May 21st, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Neal Jeffrey was the quarterback-turned-Prestonwood-pastor mentioned early in the interview.
May 21st, 2008 at 9:59 pm
Goodness Gracious…
He was saved before he reached the “age of accountability”!!!!
God is AWESOME!
May 21st, 2008 at 10:06 pm
Also,
Why does Les have to be the one to “build bridges” between himself and Vines and Hunt?
Bridges are built much faster when the bridge is built from both ends. Where is the objectivity and opposing views in the “John 3:16″ conference that there was at the “building bridges” conference. It seems as if only one side is putting forth an effort.
Kudos to Les for speaking his mind on the “baptist battles” and not backing down and cowering from his convictions. Regardless of whether you are reformed or not, you got to appreciate a “spine”.
Grace and Peace to y’all….
ABClay
May 21st, 2008 at 10:14 pm
That last post may have given the impression that Pastor Les was unwilling to work with non-reformed and that was by no stretch what the interview revealed.
Here we have a “reformed” baptist who believes that the baptisms being down is a cause for concern. And he said that his congregation was going to shoot for the 10 percent CP giving next year which doesn’t exactly fit the mold of what we are told about “Calvinists”. He emphasized that he was willing to work with anyone who believed in spreading the gospel to all corners of the world (that is a paraphrase but an accurate representation of what he said).
The previous post was my own personal observations and as such should be taken as simply the rantings of a madman.
Grace and Peace…
ABClay
May 22nd, 2008 at 9:13 am
ABClay,
you said: “Where is the objectivity and opposing views in the “John 3:16″ conference that there was at the “building bridges” conference.”
WHere is all the objectivity at any founders events?
May 22nd, 2008 at 10:00 am
Bill,
Well said. I have attended a Founders Conference in the past. Believe me…it’s a five point, Dortian Calvinists love fest that bashes non-five pointers. ABC, you seem to be upset with the “John 3:16″ conference….are you also upset with the Founders Conferences as well? And, what about the T4G Conference? I believe that all the speakers at that conference would have been considered five point, Dortian Calvinists….would they not? Was there anything negative said about any non-five pointers? against any non-calvinists? against any Arminians? Will you condemn that as well for it’s lack of objectivity and lack of opposing views?
David
May 22nd, 2008 at 10:48 am
Bill, David..
You have me on the founders conference, but I would add that the founder’s conference isn’t a response to anything. The John 3:16 conference is being billed as a “majoritarian Southern Baptist response to the “Building Bridges” and “Together for the Gospel” conferences” in the words of Steve Lemke.
First off, the Building Bridges conference included speakers who held differing opinions and they gracefully spoke of what they believed and the straw men and dishonesty was absent for the most part.
Secondly, T4G? Are you serious? This wasn’t a SBC event, I find it disingenuous to try and use this conference as support.
Here’s where the problem lies as I see it. For so long, several of those who will be speaking have sorely misrepresented the position of which they rail against. The format of the building bridges conference made this almost impossible because the speaker would have been immediately discredited if he spoke “dishonestly” about what the other believed. There is no check like this in Vines’ Conference. While they say it isn’t a “bash the Calvinist” conference, only time will tell how honest they are at representing the positions of the Calvinist. There are some men speaking there who I have a ton of respect for who I believe will be honest, then there are some others…..
You are correct about the founders conference. It is decidedly one-sided and I detest any misrepresentation of the “non-calvinist” view as well but most of those who are at the founder’s conference understand the beliefs of the majority of southern baptist because they once believe that way. I am in the same boat and I can tell you honestly that what is being taught in a lot of SBC churches regarding God and His role in salvation is frankly unbiblical. Instead of Arminian beliefs or “non 5-point Calvinism” being taught in SBC churches, what I see is semi-pelagian or pelagian theology and this is troubling.
My former pastor believe the way that Norm Geisler believes about the condition of man and this is decidedly semi-pelagian in nature. (of course old Norm will tell you he is a “true calvinist”)
Anyways, I love you guys and if you don’t want to hold to all five points, that’s fine with me, just don’t tell me that Jesus didn’t save anyone on the cross.
Grace and peace to y’all…
ABClay
May 22nd, 2008 at 11:19 am
Brothers Bill and David,
I don’t necessarilly want to jump into the middle of anything, but I do belive I can add something to your discussions with ABClay. I have never been to a “Founders Conference,” but I have listened to the audio of the Building Bridges Conference and I had the great privilage of attending this years T4G Conference. The audio of both of these conferences are available to anyone interested.
The Building Bridges Conference was well represented by both sides and each had the opportunity to share their positions equally and in a scholarly manner. There was no “bashing” as you seem to imply. There was conviction and passion demonstrated by both sides - but all was presented in a factual and brotherly fashion. At the T4G Conference, each of the speakers were decidedly reformed in theology - but no one did any bashing of those who were not. There were no straw men presented only to be burned. It was a great time of worship, fellowship and instruction.
David, you ask: “Was there anything negative said about any non-five pointers? against any non-calvinists? against any Arminians?” The answer is: No, there wasn’t any of this at either of these two conferences.
Grace,
Wes
May 22nd, 2008 at 11:36 am
ABClay,
I have a question: there are five very well known Southern Baptist theologians who will take one of the five points of Calvinism respectively and offer a scholarly paper on it. Could you please, ABClay, offer me some suggestion as to where I might get hold of the evidence that “several of those who will be speaking have sorely misrepresented the position of which they rail against”? That would really assist me.
Grace. With that, i am…
Peter
May 22nd, 2008 at 11:45 am
Tim & Les,
The word for which you seek is “atrocious”–a fine, “building bridges” specimen, I’d say, toward describing the expository skills of one of Southern Baptists’ most gifted biblical preachers.
Not to mention, of course, a wonderful adjective for a living but past, two time President of the Southern Baptist Convention.
Grace to you both. The interview was top notch. That’s the first time I’ve heard Les’ voice. He seems confident, sincere and a great brother to get to know. I look forward to meeting him face to face at the SBC.
With that, I am…
Peter
May 22nd, 2008 at 11:52 am
Wes in Tex and ABC Clay,
Would you call a conference that had all five point, Dortian Calvinists speakers “objective?” ABC seemed to lament over the objectivity of a conference concerning Calvinism and such…well, what about the T4G Conference?
Also, I never mentioned the Building Bridges Conference.
And, Wes, you say that you’ve never been to a Founder’s Conference. I have. It was a bash Arminian and Non-Calvinist, “if you dont believe the five points you are next to a heretic type, and you probably” are event.
And, ABC, although I didnt attend the John 3:16 Conference…like Peter asked…can you share with us what would lead you to say that they will be Calvinists bashing?
David
May 22nd, 2008 at 12:25 pm
can you believe it … both times that I’ve posted this morning my anti-spam word has been “love!”
Brother David,
As I said, I’ve never been to a “Founders Conference” and so I cannot speak to that. I don’t care for “bashing” regardless of where it comes from.
As to the T4G Conference, I don’t have a problem with either a “5-pointer” conference or a “non-5-pointer” conference. I think what ABClay was objecting to was the reasoning behind the John 3:16 conference - to counter the supposed influence of the BB or T4G meetings. If a bunch of 5-pointers want to get together for worship and study what’s wrong with that? If a group of non-5-pointers want to get together for worship and study - nothing wrong with that either. I’m all for worship, fellowship and study.
But let’s leave the caricatures and mis-information out of it. For example - I won’t say your a universalist is you don’t accuse me of being anti-missions. Or, I won’t accuse you of being weak in theology if you won’t accuse me of being unevangelistic. And the big one, don’t accuse me of splitting churches by being dishonest about my theology and I won’t accuse you of weakening our churches through your pragmatism.
And, Brother David, just as a clarification - I don’t believe that you are guilty of any of the things listed above - I only use them as illustrations. I have a great deal of respect for you and often find myself standing with you in respects to the church our Savior and our identity as Southern Baptists.
Grace,
Wes
May 22nd, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Brother Wes,
I like what you had to say “If a bunch of 5-pointers want to get together for worship and study what’s wrong with that? If a group of non-5-pointers want to get together for worship and study - nothing wrong with that either. I’m all for worship, fellowship and study.”
The heightening of the “points” is not really that important… unless their effect takes the listener further away from the truth of scripture. Both positions just need to dig a little further into scripture and then they will have some common ground.
If anyone that focuses on either position lacks the fruit given by the Spirit, then that should be enough evidence to temper your “conviction”.
Thanks for the good comment Wes,
Blessings,
Chris
May 22nd, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Brother Peter,
Please don’t condescend. I don’t believe it would “assist you” if I were to provide evidence, for if you were a former “5-point Calvinist” you would know of what I speak.
Perhaps I was out of line to say what I said about the misrepresentations and “straw men” here. I am firmly convicted that most of the men speaking in the conference truly love God and hold His Word in the highest of esteem. I do not wish to post examples of what I spoke of but they are easily available for whoever desires to seek it out.
Brother Dave,
You said that I said that they (Vines and Co.) will be Calvinists bashing?
I did not say this. Believe me when I tell you brother that I want nothing more than an honest open discussion. A debate that is absent of philosophy and systems and relies on the Holy Spirit and the Word of God for it’s ultimate authority. Wouldn’t it be a good thing for rank and file church members to actually think about and dwell for a while on what the scripture teaches about the awesome Grace of God? While I am skeptical of this outcome, I remain hopeful nonetheless.
And the point of my original posts, though it seems to have been poorly constructed, is why does Brother Tim imply that it is the duty of the Calvinist alone to build bridges when he is conducting the interview?
I have thought about this question, and I have since formulated what I believe to be a reasonable answer. As the president of the SBC, and in light of some of the things that Brother Les has said regarding some particular sermons that he took offense to, it would be incumbent upon him to reach out in an effort to tear down the fence.
Can we discuss the interview now?
His church is committed to the CP, he is not an “establishment” guy, he professes to love the Lord, he is committed to the great commission.
What did you think about the interview? Have you listened to it?
Grace and Peace…
ABClay
May 22nd, 2008 at 1:48 pm
ABC,
Pot, I’d like to introduce you to Kettle.
Your comment number 7 made me laugh out loud. It’s a wonderful appeal to refrain from caricature, yet you end it with “just don’t tell me Jesus didn’t save anyone on the cross.”
The irony is compounded when you tell Peter to refrain from condescension. Come on, man, you can do better…
May 22nd, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Brother Chris,
Thank you for your kind words. I don’t know who said it first (it wasn’t me that’s for sure), but someone once wrote: “Those of us who who preach grace should also demonstrate grace.”
I don’t have a problem with people who disagree with my theology - so long as they do it honestly. I try to show the same courtesy though I know in my flesh I fail sometimes. I also don’t have a problem with people having passion and conviction concerning their position - I do too as you well know. Let’s just keep it true, honest and respectful.
Hope your day is one of grace and glory.
Wes
May 22nd, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Bro. Wes,
I apologize if I have let you down but I don’t see the hypocrisy in my comment (but that was a very good introduction to your comment “Pot let me introduce…)
My point being that there are many “brands” of Christian who have a somewhat “biblical” view of the Nature of God, the nature of Man, the nature of the atonement, etc. and I would certainly fall into this category, for while I try to understand perfectly, we know that this is impossible in our flesh. We all look to Christ alone for our salvation because he took the debt…(Col 2:14, etc.)
I would regard, however, someone actually saying that Christ saved no one completely on the cross as a belief that is outside of orthodox Christianity. That was why I said what I said in my closing paragraph of #7. It is my understanding of the Remonstrants that true Arminianism does not hold this view. I was by no measure implying that Bro. David nor Bro. Peter holds to this position either.
If I am wrong, I am in need of correction and willingly submit to it.
Thanks for caring….
ABClay
May 22nd, 2008 at 3:01 pm
I must leave now for a long weekend trip to the midwest. (I have to get a hybrid) I hope that God blesses you all with a nice weekend and while it is difficult to comment with my mobile device, I am able to read the comments.
I am interested to know what you all think about Brother Les Puryear’s candidacy for the SBC President and the interview in general.
Grace and Peace to y’all…
ABClay
May 22nd, 2008 at 3:11 pm
ABClay,
Thanks for the response. First, I’m quite at loss why, because I asked a very simple, yet straight-forward question, I am cautioned to “Please don’t condescend.”
How you judged me thinking I somehow thought myself a superior person asking a question to an inferior person, only you and our Sovereign remain privileged to understand. But know, ABClay, I’ll give you the benefit of doubt and not judge you taking a personal swipe at me. Fair enough?
Now that the little snag is clipped from the sweater, let’s not forget the main reason we’re here–to engage ideas, not insult folk. With that in mind, I ask once again the question I asked before:
I am as you say–a former 5P Calvinist. But I know of absolutely no document, book, sermon, essay or anything in print or public venue which either Drs. Patterson, Land, Allen, Lemke or Keathley has ever “sorely misrepresented the position of which they rail against.”
Either conceding that “Perhaps [you were] out of line to say what [you] said about the misrepresentations and “straw men” here” or being, as you say “firmly convicted that most of the men speaking in the conference truly love God and hold His Word in the highest of esteem” is decidedly irrelevant, ABClay.
You charged that these scholars “sorely misrepresented the position” of the 5Ps respectively. Nonetheless, when queried to produce the proof, you fold your hands behind your back, insisting
we pan for our own gold since it is “easily available for whoever desires to seek it out.”
That’s a strange position for one who’s confident the deck is stacked for J316. But it is a disingenuous position for one who insists he possesses shiny nuggets that show the J316 scholars are only poised to “rail against” and “misrepresent” that which they apparently do not understand.
Grace. With that, I am…
Peter
P.S. Know, my brother ABClay, I exercised restraint in dubbing your words against the J316 scholars as disingenuous. A better descriptor of your words here, at least in my view, is slanderous questioning of their scholarly credentials. But I desired not to do ‘overkill’…
May 22nd, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Brother Peter,
I would encourage you to read my post again and find the context in which I used the word “disingenuous”. I was not speaking of the manner of which those speakers supported their beliefs, I was speaking of using the T4G conference as a justification of the J316 (that’s a lot easier to write than John 3:16) conference since it was not sanctioned by the SBC.
The scholars and Godly men that you listed, “Drs. Patterson, Land, Allen, Lemke or Keathley” do not encompass the entirety of the speakers at that event. As you will notice, you leave “SOME” of the speakers out of your post and this is why I did not paint with such a broad brush as to say “ALL”, but I said “SOME”.
And I do not consider misrepresentations of another’s positions as “shiny nuggets” as you claim.
I refrained from listing examples because doing so would lead to a further digression from the point intended by the original author.
Thank you for your restraint though, it is very kind.
Grace and Peace….
ABClay
May 22nd, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Can’t even quote my own post properly. I did not say “ALL”, I said “Several”.
My inadequacies never cease to amaze me.
May 22nd, 2008 at 4:48 pm
ABClay,
First, ABClay, I’m unsure I need to go back and read your comment but I’m quite confident you need to be careful to read mine, for you strangely confuse my use of “disingenuous” concerning your position with your usage: “I would encourage you to read my post again and find the context in which I used the word “disingenuous.”
As for your statement that “[You} do not consider misrepresentations of another’s positions as “shiny nuggets” as [I] claim” all I can say is, you’ve got to be kidding me.
Allow me once more: point me, if you would be so kind, to anyone of the several scholars presenting on the 5Ps who “sorely misrepresented the position of which they rail against.”
To my knowledge, there are only two sermons–Drs. Vines & Stanley, one of which may be tentative. Both the bulk and heart of the conference constitute papers from five respectable scholar-theologians who are Southern Baptists.
Hence, which one(s) of those who present their views respectively on the 5Ps is/are among the “several”which you chide as “sorely misrepresenting the position of which they rail against”?
That’s my final plea for evidence, my brother ABClay. If you choose to ignore it, I suppose we may safely conclude you have no evidence.
But if you possess no evidence, ABClay, could you please inform us how your making blanket, unguarded accusations about “several” unnamed scholars whom you allege “sorely misrepresent the position of which they rail against”–and doing so without the least bit of evidence–is not itself a pristine example of “sorely misrepresenting the position of which one rails against”?
I hope your trip is a safe one. With that, I am…
Peter
May 22nd, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Brother Peter,
In the hope that this tangential “discussion” can end, I concede. I have explained my position the best I know. I have not slandered anyone. I have to get on the road.
Grace and Peace…
ABClay
May 22nd, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Brothers,
Peter kinda got me interested to know what one of the presenters, Patterson, has said of these things in the past…. so I went out and looked a few minutes.
I am not sure if Patterson has changed his views much since 2000, but here is an excerpt taken from a interview with Dr. Paige Patterson, President of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, conducted by Dr. Mark Dever and Mr. Matt Schmucker of the Center for Church Reform.
Dever: I understand that conversion has to be something that fundamentally God does in our souls by the vivifying influence of the Holy Spirit, to use the old theological language, that the Holy Spirit by the preaching of the gospel (Romans 10), and by the word of Christ, that the Holy Spirit comes in and uses that word and brings new life to a soul. What that means essentially is that regeneration is not caused first by our faith apart from the work of the Holy Spirit. As we are thinking through conversion, I see it very much the Bible teaching it as the activity of God’s Spirit in us. Not at all unrelated to our action. We have to have the gospel preached, Paul is clear on that, and we have to repent and believe, but what I stop and ask the question How is it that I ever did repent and believe? My only answer is the activity of God’s Holy Spirit.
Patterson: I think I would agree with you 100%. I think probably where we might not see it quite eye to eye is that I would not insist that regeneration be the word applied to that work of the Spirit at this point. I am uncomfortable with preceding repentance and faith by regeneration, although I am equally uncomfortable with preceding regeneration by repentance and faith. I see it all as something that happens in a nanosecond. The point where I really do agree with you 100%, Mark, would be that that can never come to pass as a coincidence of any set of human actions, however you want to define that. Whether of one person or other person’s influencing it, or whatever. If it happens, it happens as you very well stated by the vivifying presence and power of the Holy Spirit.
Dever: My concern and I think the concern of the more Calvinistic types in this is simply to say that we don’t want to fall back into this Roman Catholic error of assuming that we are saved because we have cooperated with the grace of God. We just really don’t want to go anywhere near that. We know that we have to repent and believe but we want to make sure the glory of that goes entirely to God. Whereas the Roman Catholics are quite clear in saying that they want God to be glorified, but they think He has made us such a way, and the fall has not been so bad that we can’t of our own nature still cooperate with God’s grace.
Patterson: No, they have misunderstood the scripture completely because even after you are saved Jesus said “without Me you can do nothing.” If that’s even true after you’re saved, then what is it before you’re saved? So I agree with you completely and the only rejoinder I would make is that the reason some of us fear the more Calvinistic expression of it is that we fear that what often happens is that people don’t preach hard for repentance and faith. Certainly some Calvinists do, and I don’t have a problem with that. But I do have with those who don’t preach hard for repentance and faith because they say, If God’s going to do this He’s going to do it regardless of what I do.
Dever: I have to say as somebody who’s a Calvinist who preaches all the time, I do feel that tension. You’re not just making that up. I understand that because I do know it is God who saves and I don’t want to manipulate a false conversion because I think that hurts evangelism and deceives that person, but at the same time Jesus used a lot of imperatives. If we are going to be biblical Christians and preachers we cannot be scared to use those imperatives.
Patterson: I guess my concern is that we keep it in proper tension. We don’t know how to explain all those things for each other or for a lost and listening world. We wish we could, so we have to, in effect, preach with an intention. Spurgeon was one of the best at that, actually. He’d write a book against Calvinism but then he himself would pretty well preach Calvinistically. So I think he saw the tension that has to be held.
At least in the year 2000 Dr. Patterson seem to be comfortable not making an assessment of the question Mark was asking when he said “I am uncomfortable with preceding repentance and faith by regeneration, although I am equally uncomfortable with preceding regeneration by repentance and faith. I see it all as something that happens in a nanosecond.”
So if Dr. Patterson’s has held to the same thought as eight years ago….it doesn’t seem to matter to him what happens at salvation necessarily…..which later in this short excerpt helps us to see what informs his preaching….when he said “But I do have with those who don’t preach hard for repentance and faith because they say, If God’s going to do this He’s going to do it regardless of what I do.”
I think it is easy to see Dr. Patterson’s approach. It is possible that some minds might find his answer appalling.
Blessings,
Chris
May 22nd, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Chris,
I do not doubt some may find Dr. Patterson’s answers appalling to even other subjects apart from 5P Calvinism. My personal digression from ABClay was his blatant statement that several of the participants “sorely misrepresent the position of which they rail against.”
I think it is incumbent upon those making such accusations to produce the explicit goods for us to consider. Not one of the scholar-theologians has, to my knowledge, made the elementary mistake of dishonestly caricaturing their opponent’s position, and inserting a more “reasonable” one, hoping no one watching will notice.
Personally, I tire of the eternal ’straw-man’ nonsense thrown at seasoned, thoughtful NonCalvinist theologians. And not only that, to make the over-used ’straw-man’ complaint into a matter of dishonesty on the part of the accused issues a charge of moral failure. For me, it is simply unacceptable.
Most folk with whom I have dialogged through the years who actually did commit the classic ’straw-man’ type of fallacy, did so not out of intent but ignorance. They honestly used to the best of their ability at the time the way they understood the issue. The obstacle was ignorance of knowledge, not intent about knowledge. One is a matter of teaching; the other is a matter of morals.
Grace, Chris. With that, I am…
Peter
May 22nd, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Brother Peter,
Got it… No doubt you are correct to caution all of us to respond with the facts.
Blessings,
Chris
May 23rd, 2008 at 8:23 am
Volfan:
I am a little late to the discussion here but I am very interested in knowing which Founders Conference you attended that was a “five point, Dortian Calvinists love fest that bashe[d] non-five pointers” (comment #6) and a “’if you dont believe the five points you are next to a heretic type, and you probably’ are event” (comment #11). Any specific talk or speaker that you could point me to would also be appreciated. All of our conferences are recorded and the audio is readily available, so I want to go back and listen to what you heard.
Thanks for your help.
May 23rd, 2008 at 8:25 am
Peter,
To answer your question, I know of one of the presenters who has, in the past and on several occasions, sorely misrepresented Calvinism. I have heard Steve Lemke set up strawmen only to knock them down when it pertains to Calvinism. At last year’s Baptist Center for Theology and Ministry conference, Lemke delivered a paper on why Baptists shouldn’t be Presbyterians (read: don’t become a Calvinist, because then you’ll have to become a Presbyterian). I don’t have a copy of his paper, and my memory has not been inspired to remember exact quotes, but there was more than one occasion where he misrepresented Calvinism.
Keathley, on the other hand, is well read in this area and very fair-minded. As a disciple of Patterson, there is no love-loss from Keathley on Calvinism, but at least he fights fair. If I were attending the 3.16 conference (which I’m not), Keathley’s would be the presentation I would not want to miss. I can’t speak to Patterson, Allen, or Land, but do you really think Vines and Stanley are going to be fair? Given their previous rants, I highly doubt it.
May 23rd, 2008 at 8:42 am
Tom,
I attended a Founder’s Conference in Memphis back in the 80’s. I’m not sure what year exactly. And, I can assure you that I was talking with many Founder’s friendly people back in that day as well who would come across the way I described the conference. I came away from those days of being challenged to be a five point, Dortian Calvinist with these thoughts in my mind. I had more than a couple of people in Memphis back in those days who tried hard to get me to become a Dortian Calvinist, and I sincerely considered it. But, in the end, I saw it as an extreme in theology, and it just didnt line up with the bible’s teachings, imho. I do consider you to be a Brother in Christ, just as I would consider an Assembly of God who really loves Jesus to be a Brother in Christ, but I would look at both of you as being on opposite ends of theological extremes. I hope that this does not offend you too much. That is not my intent. But, I’m just trying to explain to you where I”m coming from.
I had Dr. Nettles for Church History at Mid America Seminary, and several of my friends had been persuaded by him to be five pointers. I felt that Dr. Nettles, who is very Founders friendly, was constantly trying to “convert” people in his teaching….as were my friends. They were very into converting people to the five points. They came after me like a hound on the scent of a coon in the TN hollers and hills. And, at that Founders Conference, I felt like I was hearing more of the same. Now, grant it, that was 20 something years ago, so my memory is not 100% of what was exactly said, but that’s what I came away with.
God bless you, Tom,
David
May 23rd, 2008 at 9:38 am
Brother James,
As a disciple of Patterson, there is no love-loss from Keathley on Calvinism, but at least he fights fair. Where do you think Dr. Keathley learned to fight fair?
Also, let’s talk about the Building Bridges conference. I hearl Dr. Keathley’s presentation spoken about by other presenters as ‘amazement that anyone would present from a Molonist’ point of view. I saw high-fives being given by personalities on the platform when a strong point was made in favor of Calvinism, but the moderator admonished the applause when a point was made against Calvinism. I was in attendance.
While I enjoyed the Building Bridges conference, let’s not over state it as something it wasn’t. Fair in presentations? Yes I would agree with that. Balanced as to perspectives? I am not certain I could agree with that statement. While there were Calvinist and non-Calvinist, there was Rick Warren bashing, but no John Piper bashing at all. There was so much non-Calvinist bashing going on that Ed Stetzer openly admonished it on Friday am. So let’s not attribute something to this conference that was not there.
Blessings,
Tim
May 23rd, 2008 at 10:02 am
Tim,
I’m honestly confused about your post directed at me. I wasn’t saying that BB was fair or balanced, or that there wasn’t any non-Calvinist bashing going on. I was answering Peter’s earlier question when he asked if anyone knew of any of the 5 presenters at the upcoming 3.16 conference that would misrepresent Calvinism.
My answer was a resounding ‘yes’. Lemke has in the past done just that, and i gave an example. My comment about Keathley was that he is by no means a Calvinist, but at least he strives to fairly represent their position, something Lemke has not done (nor do i expect him to do).
Apologies to you and others if you thought I was speaking of something of which I was not.
May 23rd, 2008 at 10:04 am
Tim,
For even further clarification, I would never say that BB was ‘anything’, because I wasn’t there. I wasn’t ‘overstating’ anything because I wasn’t ’stating’ or ‘attributing’ anything about the BB conference.
May 23rd, 2008 at 10:38 am
David:
Thanks for your response. I am not at all offended by your views of my theology. Trust me, I have been described in much less flattering ways.
I attended all the conferences in Memphis and did not experience what you did. Can you remember the name of at least one of the speakers or the name of one of the messages that “bashe[d] non-five pointers” (comment #6) or said (or implied) that “’if you dont believe the five points you are next to a heretic type, and you probably’ are event” (comment #11)?
If you could give me a name or a message topic, that would greatly help me.
Thanks,
tom
May 23rd, 2008 at 10:58 am
Tim:
As you know, the audio for the Building Bridges Conference are available for anyone to access who wants to hear first hand what was said there.
A shot was taken at Rick Warren, and Ed Stetzer did speak a word of admonition about that, but not about “non-Calvinists bashing.”
You must have skipped Dr. Yarnell’s presentation if you did not hear any criticism of John Piper (I would not call it “bashing,” however). He was accused of being confused on the Gospel, catering to our narcissistic culture and, being deficient in his evangelistic presentations. Spurgeon received similar critiques from Dr. Yarnell.
Dr. Keathley was good-naturedly chided about his presentation on Molinism and, as far as I could tell, took it as it was intended–light-hearted banter among brothers. I don’t think many were expecting a paper on Molinism, given the assigned topic. But, Dr. Keathley presented his material in a wonderful way. In fact, one of the other speakers said that he is “my kind of Molinist.”
Regarding the high-five…Nathan Finn and I are the guilty “personalities.” It did not happen, however, when “a strong point was made in favor of Calvinism,” but rather as an attempt at humor in response to a question…something that, judging from the laughter that resulted, most of the other attenders got.
Again, the audios are readily available, so no one is at the mercy of either your or my memory. Rather than trust the memory of two “older” men, I encourage anyone interested to check it out for himself. The files can be accessed here.
Blessings,
tom
May 23rd, 2008 at 11:03 am
Tom,
That was twenty something years ago. I cant remember who spoke at it. I do remember who led the singing, and I cant even remember his name at the moment. He also led the singing at Kirby Woods Baptist Church back then….if I remember correctly.
Tom, I really dont care to get into a tit for tat kind of thing here. I’m really just not up to it, nor do I really care to pursue it. I’ve had enough on my plate this week to feed an army, and I’m really not up to any dessert. I can just tell you that back in the early 80’s…I heard from the five point, Dortian Calvinist crowd things like….
…non five pointers teach a “man-centered” theology instead of a “God-centered” theology….
…that non five pointers teach a works salvation…
….that non five pointers are else not intellectual enough to understand the tulip theory, or else they’re not spiritual enough to accept it, or else they are just out and out denying the clear teaching of Scripture to reject five point, tulip theology….
…that non five pointers are not saved….
And, Tom, the list goes on and on of things that I can tell you that was said by some of the Dortian Calvinists that I dealt with in Memphis back in the early 80’s. And, I have heard similar things said by Dortian Calvinists since then.
Well, I have to go….I have many, many things to catch up on before my week ends….and, I really have to get after them to get it all done…so, I dont know if I will be able to respond to this comment stream again today, or not….
Again, God bless, Tom…and, I am thankful for the Dortian Calvinists who challenged me for one thing….they challenged me to think on doctrines and scriptures that I had not really dealt with extensively until they did challenge me. They made me dig deeper into the Word, and they caused me to grow in my faith and in my understanding in the process…and, for that, I am thankful.
David
May 23rd, 2008 at 12:28 pm
James,
Thanks for at least offering contra ABClay to give specific instances, my brother. Yet, I am not convinced about Dr. Lemke’s ’straw-man’ without chewing on the hay myself, if you don’t mind. I’ve noted far to many accusations of “dishonesty” and “straw-man” tactics toward NonCalvinist thinkers to remain skeptical that it is a fair and balanced charge without examining it myself.
As for Drs. Vines & Stanley, they are not there offering papers but preaching an expository message. Nor am I in agreement that Dr. Vines or Dr. Stanley will offer “rants.” As for Stanley, I’ve never so much as heard a peep out of him about this. And, if you are referring to Dr. Vines message preached at FBCWoodstock being a ‘rant’ I posted on my site an alternative view to Dr. Ascol’s similar charge of “rant” on Founders blog.
Of course, I’m quite sure I was overly biased and unbalanced unlike Dr. Ascol’s sober, objective view ;^)
Grace, James. With that, I am…
Peter
May 23rd, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Peter,
I’m not asking you to be convinced, especially since i am unable to recall ‘chapter and verse’ of Lemke’s presentation. I was only trying to give you a solid answer to the question you posed to ABClay. Thanks for your civility in the matter.
If you are sufficiently interested in following this lead, you are more than welcomed to email Lemke at slemke@nobts.edu and ask for a copy of the address he gave on at the BCTM conference in Spring 2007 on Presbyterianism. I’m sure he would not hesitate to send it to you, especially as you are one who would be on ‘his side’ of this issue. Granted, his paper was not specifically about 5 point Calvinism, but he made some inaccurate and broadbrushed statements about Reformed theology and ecclesiology in such a fashion that leads me to believe (along with other reasons I care not to share) that he will be doing it again in the not-to-distant future at the 3.16 conference.
I apologize for lumping preaching and lecturing together. I didn’t do it intentionally, but was merely continuing a thought which spilled over to Vines and Stanley. I know they are different than the phd’s. I’ve not gone to check your website for your alternate interpretation of Vine’s rant, nor for Ascol’s thoughts on the matter. However, hearing Vines one time say those who ingest alcohol are walking down the road towards apostasy was more than enough for me (especially coming from a man who, as far as i can tell, doesn’t believe in apostasy in the first place) to question his ability to treat controversial issues with any sense of fairness. Some might call my view jumping to conclusions or some sort of fallacy. I prefer to call it precedent.
May 23rd, 2008 at 6:01 pm
David:
I certainly don’t want to add to your full plate and fully understand your reason for not spending any more time on my questions. I asked them only because I assumed from the definitive and specific nature of your comments about your experience at a Founders Conference–that there you witnessed the “bash[ing] [of] non-five pointers” (comment #6) and heard said (or implied) that “’if you dont believe the five points you are next to a heretic type, and you probably’ are event” (comment #11)–that your memory about the source of those statements would be equally definitive, specific, and easily recalled.
My mistake. Have a great Lord’s Day.
-tom
May 23rd, 2008 at 6:08 pm
First of all, I am supporting Frank Cox for SBC President.
But I do want to comment that I have dealt with Les Puryear on a common interest apart from SBC life. Brother Les is an expert on the Alabama country superstar Hank Williams (the dad, not Bocephus). Les does programs where he sings Hank’s Gospel songs and makes an evangelistic presentation.
In my dealings with Les Puryear, he appeared to have a kind spirit, a friendly approach, and was a gentleman. This says alot.
BTW, those who regularly read Musings from Maytown (www.johnkillian.blogspot.com) know of my interest in Hank Williams. Now you know of Brother Les’ interest.
May 23rd, 2008 at 7:27 pm
I have decided to vote for whoever can keep Johnny “Been” Hunt “n” out of office.
May 23rd, 2008 at 7:57 pm
James,
Thanks for the rejoinder. I do appreciate your spirit in dialog as well, my brother. I hope our Lord blesses your weekend.
With that, I am…
Peter
May 23rd, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Brother James,
Sorry for misreading your comments. I will make certain I am more careful in the future.
Brother Tom,
Good natured chiding is still giving an impression that it is not in the line of what it should be. Also, Dr. Yarnell never spoke negatively about Dr. Piper, whereas Dr. Warren was castigated in a very negative way.
As to the high-five, it was presented in a way that someone else’s point was put down. While the point made that brought about the applause was certainly brought to the attention of the conference that it would not be tolerated.
Blessings,
Tim
Blessings,
May 23rd, 2008 at 11:19 pm
For those of you interested Dr. Cox recently put up some answers to some important questions on his website (frankcox.org). I found them helpful.
May 23rd, 2008 at 11:24 pm
[...] Interview with Pastor Les Puryear [...]
May 24th, 2008 at 12:34 am
Tom,
I’m sorry. I thought that you wanted a truthful, sincere, as accurate as I can give answer…which I did. I see now that you were just trying to out-argue me with a nice, little, debate tactic. Your sarcasm was duly noted as well. I have learned to live with that from the Founders crowd.
I honestly told you all that I can remember. Your answer back to me reminds of the 80\’s with some other people I knew. Also, I noticed that you didnt have the time, nor the inclination to answer the statements that I have heard, and others have heard, from the tulip theory people about man centered theology and works salvation, etc. Have you ever accused someone who was not a five point, Dortian Calvinist of preachng a man centered theology, or a works salvation?
Solus Christus,
David
May 24th, 2008 at 6:05 am
David:
What?? I certainly was not trying to be sarcastic. I was simply trying to gain information so I could go back and review the message/messages from the Founders Conference that you described as bashing non-Calvinists and accusing them of being heretics. Your original charges seemed to be based on a vivid, specific memory. I was simply asking for the source of that memory, which I assumed, wrongly as I have now duly noted, you would have at hand.
I don’t quite know how to respond to this charge: “I noticed that you didnt have the time, nor the inclination to answer the statements that I have heard, and others have heard, from the tulip theory people about man centered theology and works salvation, etc.” I wasn’t aware that I was expected to “answer” statements. For the record, I disavow all harsh, mean-spirited, unloving, unChristlike criticism of people.
Again, I have no desire to add to your full plate, so please do not feel compelled to respond to this. I simply wanted to know the specific sources of your specific accusations. My request has obviously upset you, and for that I am sorry. It was never my intent to do so.
Have a great Lord’s Day tomorrow.
tom
May 24th, 2008 at 6:10 am
Tim:
The chiding and high five are recorded on the panel discussion audio file…though the latter is barely audible and may be easily missed by someone who only listens and was not present. But, I am sure Nathan Finn would be willing to give his take on it for those who question your or my accuracy in remembering it.
Fortunately, Dr. Yarnell’s critique of Piper is on both audio, and now in book form. I don’t have the book at hand, but will gladly provide you the page numbers later if you would like to have them. You are simply “misremembering” this.
Have a great Lord’s Day tomorrow.
tom
May 24th, 2008 at 8:41 am
Brother David,
I believe you are correct that Dortian Calvinist can be just plain mean at times, thus a sinner. And that the Dortianist’s Arminian counterpart, in his attempt to call the duty of man to the forefront can be just a mean, thus a sinner.
Both camps assume the same error (sin) in their meanness… arrogance and pride.
Andrew Fuller captured this way when he spoke of these fiercely debated distinctions…. “we need the influence of the Holy Spirit to enable us to do our duty” realizing that “repentance and faith, therefore, may be duties, notwithstanding their being the gifts of God.”
Fuller stated similarly as Dr. Patterson, although Fuller committed more to the Spirit’s gifting and less to man….indicative of how knowledge informs preaching. The influence of these systems of theology no doubt informs the content of preaching.
Dr. Yarnell started his building bridges paper by saying “Alongside our fierce defense of local church independence, Southern Baptists west of the Mississippi River are interested in Christian unity. For instance, from the beginning of Baptist life in Texas, we have sought unity.”
Scripture is clear, ….there is “unity” where there is “life”, yet only those capable of seeing will look to the maker of unity for the fruit to emerge. More often than not zealous men will overlook the benefit of the Spirit’s work and mitigate with their own work, spitting from both sides of the isle, while all the while missing the purpose of unity afforded by our Lord.
Ephesians 4:3 “being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.”
Men and Women in Christ “preserve” the unity “of the Spirit”. The unity is something already established by the Spirit of God and worthy of preserving. Unity is not something to seek, search for, or protect….it is “preserved” diligently.
That is typically the most difficult fruit to realize.
Blessings,
Chris
May 25th, 2008 at 10:23 am
Tom,
I will take you at your word about the sarcasm. I apologize for misreading you. It sure sounded that way when you made the statements that you made, but, alas, I’m not infallible nor all knowing, thus, I apologize.
But again, I have to ask this question…”Have you ever accused someone who was not a five point, Dortian Calvinist of preachng a man centered theology, or a works salvation?”
Also, I’d like to ask you if you consider a Presbyterian baptism a true baptism, a Christian baptism?
David
May 25th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
David:
Apology accepted.
You ask: ”Have you ever accused someone who was not a five point, Dortian Calvinist of preachng a man centered theology, or a works salvation?” Just this week I accused Creflo Dollar of being a heretic–not because he is not a Calvinist, of course, but because of what he teaches. That is typically how I try to make my judgments. For the record, I don’t think a person must be a Dortian Calvinist in order to avoid works salvation.
I don’t know why you want me to answer your next question, but I am glad to oblige. I do not think that babies can be baptized. They can get wet, but not be baptized since baptism is for believers only. If you want to get a more thorough take on the view I hold, read Fred Malone’s book, Baptism of Disciples Alone, published by Founders Press.
Blessings,
tom
May 25th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Tom
I hope you don’t mind if I cut in. David did not focus his question on infant Baptism (even though that could be included). I believe he asked would you, “consider a Presbyterian baptism a true baptism, a Christian baptism?”
I am sure you know that some Presbyterian churches will in fact immerse adults when they become believers. So I ask again, would you, “consider a Presbyterian baptism a true baptism, a Christian baptism?”
Thanks
May 25th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Before Tom answers your very strange question, Robin, what constitutes a Presbyterian baptism?
There is Believer’s Baptism and Infant Baptism. There is Prebyteriam Church goverment and Congrgational Church government. Please explain.
May 25th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Brother Tom,
Sorry for the delay in time. My wife had me making certain that I followed-up on my promise to organize the garage.
As to Dr. Yarnell’s critique of Dr. Piper’s position is not even close to the way Rick Warren was referenced. When the book comes out, please point out to me the two positions to which we are ‘remembering’ or ‘misremembering’ and I believe you will see there is a huge difference. Dr. Yarnell takes Dr. Piper’s position to task, not the person.
Also, Dr. Piper advocates Christian baptism as being that of a peado-baptism, is that something you also advocate? Dr. Piper advocates communion being offered to someone baptized as a peado- baptist, do you advocate the offering of communion to someone that has not passed through the waters of baptism by immersion?
These questions, Brother Tom, are not aimed at Dr. Piper or you as a person. This debate is about doctrine only. Regardless of how you answer these questions, I still receive you as a Brother in Christ.
Blessings,
Tim
May 25th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Brother Robin,
I think your question really does identify how people believe the meaning of baptism to be and how they see Christ’s body, the church.
Some believe baptism to be something other than identification with Christ. Biblical doctrine teaches specifically that immersion (baptism) is the obedience to the command that Christ gave to the called out ones (Romans 10:8-10) to identify with Christ in his death and in his life (Romans 6:3-4, Colossians 2:12, Acts, Matthew 28:19-20).
Some also believe that the church is a dichotomy; somehow believing that it exists in two groups of people of differing quality, both local and universal. Biblical doctrine speaks of the church as singular… as those that God calls (Romans 9:10-12), or the called out ones that meet or assemble to worship, praise, teach, disciple, evangelize and obey the commands of our Lord. Jesus viewed the church as His body, never two separate groups that exist in a local or universal form. (Ephesians 2, Matthew 16-18).
What a very good question!
Blessing,
Chris
May 25th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Tim,
Just saw your post….
Do you really think that John Piper advocates baby-baptism? Are we speaking of the same Piper?
I would be surprised if he did….where did you find out about that?
Blessings,
Chris
May 25th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Alex
What’s so strange? I only repeated and clarified what David asked.
I believe what your question will ultimately lead to is, “What constitutes a New Testament church?” If a group of people do not constitute a New Testament church (i.e.; they baptize infants, see baptism as a sacrament dispensing grace), then are the dippings they perform on believers legitimate? Of course, as has been written, some do not believe the church has been given the authority to baptize and that it is only between the believer and God, if that is you, I don’t really feel a need to carry on with this conversation. Not trying to be rude, Alex, but this has been argued ad nauseam.
Now, before you call me a Landmarker, I disagree with J. M. Carrol’s trail of blood and I have read very little from J. R. Graves.
Now to your question, a Presbyterian Baptism is one that is performed under the banner of a Presbyterian church.
May 25th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Chris
Thanks for the kudos. I saw it after I posted my comment.
May 25th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Brother Robin,
There are assemblies that exist that are in error and teach error (I know that is a shocking to think about!) that are truly the church (Baptist assemblies are not immune as you well know). There are Presbyterian brothers that practice baptism by immersion to identify with Christ in that baptism. For instance, if an individual was “called out” by God in the midst of our Presbyterian brothers as an adult, our brothers would baptize him or her as identifying with Christ alone in his death and in his life. That baptism is certainly biblical in nature and substance and should be accepted by any assembly of “called out” ones.
There is no biblical evidence that I have found to the contrary. Is there?
That does not dismiss the error in the teaching of the Presbyterian brothers concerning their fascination with infant baptism. Infant baptism is truly not biblical in nature and substance and should be avoided.
Blessings,
Chris
May 26th, 2008 at 5:43 am
Brother Chris,
Here is a quote;
I would gladly admit Ligon Duncan or Sinclair Ferguson or R. C. Sproul or Philip Ryken to membership at Bethlehem (if I were allowed by our constitution), and in doing so I would not be giving up my view on the proper nature of baptism. Notice that he says he is tied by his church’s constitution not to do such. He personally would allow such an admittance.
You can find his complete article concerning this here. Dr. Piper does give a great argument for how he would handle it because of his personal belief on baptism. But his argument is one of advocating peado-baptism as being a valid Christian Baptism.
Blessings,
Tim
May 26th, 2008 at 6:28 am
Brother Tom,
Because my memory is failing me at 49 years of age, I decided research my ‘mis-remembering’ of Dr. Yarnell’s statements concerning Dr. John Piper.
It seems that Dr. Yarnell was expressing how lost priorities in the presentation of the gospel being presented by some Calvinists. He first uses Spurgeon as an example then moves to Piper. In that presentation he referenced John Piper’s three tracts that Dr. Piper made available on the internet. Thus, what you equate to the’chiding and high-fiving’ that came at the end of the program is no more than a 1 paragraph critique of three tracts. This critique never takes Dr. Piper to task on any personal issues. As a matter of fact he even lauds him for the positive points he sees. I will not try to explain the paper that Dr. Yarnell presented I will leave our readers with the paragraph to which we refer.
Piper’s Desiring God Ministries placed three evangelism tracts on the Web for distribution. The first tract is noticeable for its elevation of Piper’s “Christian hedonism.” Although Piper must be lauded for injecting divine glory into a gospel presentation, it caters to rather than challenges
our narcissistic culture: “God gets the praise and we get the pleasure.” Piper, busily promoting peculiarities, never discusses the person of
Jesus Christ. And when asking what the believer must do, he points them to a church but neglects to exhort them to follow Christ in baptism, as the Great Commission teaches. In the second tract Piper correctly discusses Jesus Christ at length, alongside his passion for glory, but passes quickly over sin and never issues a call for the sinner to believe in Jesus
Christ. In the third tract Piper issues a call for faith in Christ, but the tract is written for the struggling believer rather than the lost person.
Blessings,
Tim
May 26th, 2008 at 7:13 am
Brother Tim,
I’ve been keeping up a bit with the conversation here via receiving the comments via email.
See if I have this straight: Dr. Yarnell’s paragraph above is somehow construed as a questionably appropriate critique? Am I correct in assuming this? Please let me know soon because I need a good belly-buster before lunch.
Cannot anything whatsoever be mentioned that may be a possible defect or flaw or weakness of Calvinism or a particular Calvinist’s approach and/or personal theology without it being questioned as unfair or ’straw-man’ or inappropriate or argumentum ad hominem?
Please respond quickly, Tim. Laughing is fading quickly as an option. With that, I am…
Peter
May 26th, 2008 at 7:23 am
Brother Tim,
John Piper does not believe in baptizing infants or think that paedo-baptism is a baptism at all. I read those hundreds of pages years ago concerning his argument and purposed article changes, and the papers presented by the elders at Bethlehem. If you read the documents it is abundantly clear that he teaches against paedo-baptism.
It appears that John’s argument is not to equate water baptism as the same as being placed into and a member of the body of Christ (church)? I think that is a different argument than he advocating paedo-baptism. I have never read or observed him practice anything but believer’s immersion.
I guess I am not following your logic here?
Blessings,
Chris
May 26th, 2008 at 7:41 am
Brother Tom,
I didn’t get to make the Building Bridges meeting, but I did have a chance to read through some of the papers. One of those was Dr. Yarnell’s. IMHO his paper was a view to Baptist history and an argument against a couple of things he saw as dangerous concerning hyper-Calvinism. It was an interesting read,…. and as all of us do, I believe he uses other written testimony to his advantage concerning other men such as Piper and dozens of others to try and explain his view.
His paper was far from bashing. If anything, the paper may have bordered on re-contextualization of some of the opposing arguments, but it was hardly bashing. I thought debate was somewhat the intent of the meeting under the guise of bridges…to try and get things out into the open and understand these opposing systems a little better. I think anyone is going to get a little uptight when there is an attempt to try to re-order the ordo salutis depending on the A version or the C version. It does appears that anytime doctrine becomes minimally important, these discussions immerge. That’s not such a bad thing.
Blessings,
Chris
May 26th, 2008 at 8:57 am
Tim:
Well, after spending 30 minutes trying to clarify my points in my dialogue with you, my computer ran out of battery and crashed and I lost everything I had written. I will try again, but in an even more abbreviated fashion. I have obviously miscommunicated and so will try to explain a little more fully my meaning without being too pedantic.
My comment about Dr. Yarnell’s critique of Piper was not intended to be a criticism of Dr. Yarnell. I stated that I did not view his comments as “bashing” (#34). Some might, but I do not. I called attention to Dr. Yarnell’s critique of Piper in response to your comment that, “there was Rick Warren bashing, but no John Piper bashing at all” (#30). Perhaps I put too much emphasis on your “at all.” I do not think that Yarnell’s comments were “out of bounds” in the least. His assignment was to offer appraisal and critique. I cited his reference to Piper simply because you brought Piper’s name up.
Your quote from Dr. Yarnell’s paper (#60) comes from the section to which I was referring. The very next sentence in his paper says this, “The Calvinist concern for the gospel is a cause for rejoicing, but the demonstrated confusion of Calvinism with regard to the gospel is a cause for concern.” By “demonstrated confusion” I understand Dr. Yarnell to be referring to his critique of Piper and Spurgeon.
Your comment in #42 that, “Dr. Yarnell never spoke negatively about Dr. Piper” might be disputed by some who would regard a charge of being confused with regard to the Gospel as negative. Be that as it may, I in no way fault Dr. Yarnell for making a critique. That was his responsibility. I pointed it out simply because it seemed to me that, based on your comment (in #30) you had forgotten it or perhaps missed it at the conference.
Finally, I don’t understand your following statement to me (in #60): “Thus, what you equate to the’chiding and high-fiving’ that came at the end of the program is no more than a 1 paragraph critique of three tracts.” I was not trying to equate any of those things but rather, I tried to explain them (in #34) in light of the concerns you raised in your comments in #30.
This exchange has reminded me of Churchill’s observation that the USA and England are 2 nations divided by a common language. I hope my comments have at least somewhat clarified my meaning. If not, I am certainly willing to speak personally with you about any remaining questions or concerns you have (email me and we can set it up). But I don’t think I can add anything else here to make my meaning more clear.
Thanks for letting me participate for a bit.
Blessings,
tom
May 26th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Brother’s Chris, Tom and Peter,
I will respond. I ran back inside the house to get away from my wife and her honey-do list that she is quite the stickler to get accomplished.
I promise I will respond, but it will be later this evening before I can get to it.
Blessings,
Tim
May 26th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
A few years back, actually from about March through December of 2006, James White addressed several sermons from Jerry Vines, Johnny Hunt, Nelson Price along with Ergun and Emir Caner showing their many misrepresentations of Calvinism on his internet broadcast called The Dividing Line. You can access his site and the archives here:
http://www.aomin.org/
May 26th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
BTW, I would suspect there will be at least one more speaker added to John 3:16 conference. But only AFTER a new SBC President is elected.
May 26th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Bill,
The spam word is “gentleness.” Therefore, for ‘gentleness’ sake, I’ll just smile and go strolling merrily along, completely overlooking why one would think any regular reader of this site would care 2 Georgia hoots what a Hardshell Baptist thinks of Drs. Vines, Hunt, Caner & Caner, et al.
Oh, me. Hep me Lord…I need a very, very strong cup of coffee. Grace, my brother Bill.
With that, I am…
Peter
May 26th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
Peter, I’m really not trying to be mean but I don’t understand what you are saying or suggesting. ABClay claimed that the men involved in the John 3:16 conference “have sorely misrepresented the position of which they rail against.” You then asked for proof. I was merely pointing out where you could find it because the way James White dealt with the sermons is by letting you hear their words and then pausing to comment on them. He didn’t put words in their mouths. You may not agree with his rebuttals, but at least you can hear how they misrepresented Calvinism.
One of the sermons included Dr. Price’s Bus Stop Destination Heaven & Hell analogy. Did you ever hear that one? Talk about putting words in someone’s mouth. It was the most misleading representation of Calvinism I had ever heard and it ended up getting published in the Christian Index.
I don’t know the man but I really have to wonder about someone that would stoop that low. He can’t seriously be that ignorant. I don’t know a single Calvinist, past or present, who believes what he suggested we believe.
Yes, Peter, I realize the word ignorant is strong. But I honestly can’t think of a more fair way of describing how awful that analogy was.
May 26th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
Bill,
Thanks. I do not consider you mean at all. The problem is twofold, my brother.
First, I was not inquiring to ABClay, nor to anyone else, for that matter, where evidence that critics existed could be found. I asked for evidences not evaluations. In addition, if I’m checking into the welfare of my chickens, I desire no counsel from the weasel.
Secondly, Brother, out of the names you listed, only one–Jerry Vines–is affiliated with J316. Dr. Vines is preaching the opening message on J316. He is decidedly not giving a paper.
All participants giving papers are academics. Dr. Vines assembled some of the best minds represented in SB life. And we continue to hear: “These guys misrepresent…they offer ’strawman’ arguments”
This wears me out, I have to say. I hope, under God, ’strawman’ is a banned word in glory. It is absolutely so overused, it’s been robbed of any real meaning from its original intent. And, if I am honest, I believe Founders Calvinists have done their rightful share in ruining it.
With that, I am…
Peter
May 26th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
Peter, I wasn’t suggesting you take James White’s commentary as evidence, but the words of the preachers themselves. You seem like a sharp guy and I was confident you would hear the misrepresentations. There was a day when I hated Calvinism, and I mean hated, but I never would have made the mistake of describing it as poorly as these men have.
Perhaps you’re right that the academics giving papers haven’t been guilty of the charges mentioned. I wouldn’t know since I’m just a layperson. I can only comment on what I hear from the loudest voices in the convention, and that is often pathetic.
Could it be that this is one of the core problems in the SBC? Somehow the great teaching in our seminaries translates into shallow preaching from our pulpits. And I don’t mean that as a subtle slam as I’m aware many of those great teachers are Calvinists.
May 26th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
I am a little disturbed by the fact that the audio from the conference will not be made available. I’m not sure what the motivation is behind that, but it certainly doesn’t look good. Maybe they don’t want people like James White to have an opportunity for rebuttal.
May 26th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
Peter,
I have returned from my “vacation” and thank you for your well wishes, it was a lovely time with my family.
I can see how you grow tired of our constant cry of “strawman”, so much so that you probably would consider it in itself a strawman argument.
If I went to my former church and asked them if they had ever heard of Keathley, Lemke, Patterson, Allen, or Land, I would bet a dollar to a donut that the answer on all (but perhaps one) count would be a resounding NO. If, however, I took the same congregation and asked them to tell me two of the greatest southern baptist pastors today, I feel with great assurance that they would include either Vines or Hunt in their answer (or maybe both). The pastors in the convention who are misrepresenting our position are those who are the most renown and have the greatest following, therefore we must counter by pointing out first and foremost that we have been misrepresented.
I don’t know if you can answer this question, but why has there not been a loud call out from those of your camp who understand what Calvinists believe to encourage those who are guilty among you to stop the misrepresentations of Calvinists positions?
Grace and Peace Brother Peter…
ABClay
May 26th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
Dear Peter,
Would you mind defining “hardshell baptist” for me and telling me to whom you refer?
I suspect it is James White to whom you refer and, if so, would you please tell me in what way he fits into your definition of “hardshell baptist”?
Maybe you’d like to come meet Dr. White in Duluth next month. He will be dealing with Islam. I will be there with my family and some church members. See here.
With gentleness,
Mark
May 26th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
Looks like Brother Bill made my previous point for me. Oh well.
Brother David (VolFan),
I enjoy your comments and appreciate your wisdom but I find it interesting to know that the entirety of the basis for your disdain for the Founders and their fanatical brand of Calvinism is based solely on a speech that you heard over 20 years ago.
It’s just interesting is all. A lot has changed since Reagan was in office.
Grace and Peace…
ABClay
May 26th, 2008 at 11:48 pm
Wow, I tell ya….sometimes we really argue about too much. So much, in fact, that we end up arguing about nothing.
Brothers Tim and Tom,
I was certainly a pleasure meeting both of you at the BB Conference. As well as meeting Bros. Les, CB and Bob Cleveland.
Who was it that made the comments about Rick Warren? Do any of you recall? I’ve certainly heard several non-Calvinists who were not fans of Warren. Anyways, I think the BBC was pretty balanced though not perfect. It would be nice if the John 3:16 Conference would try to build upon the BBC and improve rather than respond.
It’s tough at a conference of SBCers speaking to specific theologies such as Calvinism since the non-Calvinists are necessarily Arminian. That causes a certain tension. This reminds me of what Roger Olson said in an interview about his book on Arminian theology that most of the church today semi-pelagian. It’s interesting that not many picked up on that. I can’t help but wonder that if Tom Ascol had made such a statement what reaction may come.
I don’t think many people knew what to do with Dr. Keathley’s molinism since only myself and one other, if I remember correctly, raised our hands acknowledging we knew what it was. If he does the same in Woodstock I bet some of those folks won’t know what to do with it either.
One last thing for Volfan.
Vol has made those statements about the Founder’s Conference so pointedly that it is only fair that Tom ask for clarification and more info. To make general charges like that and then provide no further info to help clarify just doesn’t seem right.
I certainly hope no one would charge me today with who I was 20 years ago. And I hope I can say the same 20 years from now as the Lord sanctifies me. I hope my brothers give me more of a benefit of doubt and would allow me to clarify my positions and such to build each other up if I so caused someone a problem.
Thanks,
Mark
May 27th, 2008 at 6:46 am
ABC and Johnmark,
I have found that extreme Calvinism still exists today as it did 20 years ago. It’s even more active today than it was back then. I was simply sharing with those interested that I had been to a Founders Conference, and I had dealt extensively with extreme Calvinism…very much so. I have also dealt with Founders type Calvinists often. And, I have since dealt with it….thru out my life from time to time. It’s never been what I’d call “fun” to deal with it.
In fact, the Church my brother attended had a Youth Minister “sneak” into their Church without sharing his love for tulip, and his zeal for converting everyone to it. It ended up doing great damage to their Church before the young man was let go.
Another friend of mine had a Pastor “sneak” into the Church without informing them of his intention to convert everyone into Dortian Calvinists. It also ended in great problems. The Church had great conflict. It split. It eventually died.
Believe me when I say that it was not just in the Reagan years that I’ve seen and/or dealt with this extreme brand of theology, and I’ve noticed it’s ill affects upon Churches and upon Christians.
But, again, let me say that I love my five point, Dortian Calvinists brothers….I just dont appreciate what the extreme, aggresive ones do to Churches and people. But, I do love them in the Lord, and I’m grateful for the work they do for Christ.
And, again, let me say that I do appreciate the fact that they made me dig deeper into the Word of God to understand the deep doctrines of predestination and election, etc. better. For that, I’m grateful to them.
David
May 27th, 2008 at 7:16 am
John Mark,
To insist on this “balance” that some of you continue to throw around, seems to me, to be specious. Dr. Vines put this conference together and he possesses the freedom, does he not, to invite whom he wishes.
And unless those who continue to insist the five scholars who will present scholarly papers are known for their misrepresentation of Calvinism can produce the goods to show it, I’m baffled precisely why this keeps coming up.
Of course, if Dr. Vines includes in the registration packet, buttons that say “I luv Arminius, Finney’s systematic text and t-shirts with Arminius, Finney and, of course, Billy Graham on them, we might wonder what’s going on.
Oops! That’s your Founders brothers idea about showing up in t-shirts with a prominent Calvinist on it to make a statement. Sorry. How forgetful of me.
As for ‘Hardshell,” that’s an historical euphemism, as you well are aware and, as euphemisms are, hard to nail down. We used it years ago referring to Primitive Baptists.
When I was at Boyce in Louisville, I recall my pastor looking me straight in the eye while we were having a lively exchange: “Pete, do you know what you are? You are an old-time ‘hardshell.’” The discussion was about regeneration.
At t