Posted on 08/30/2009 5:06:19 PM PDT by Alex Murphy
I never heard of David Cloud before yesterday. I was directed to an article of his entitled "Calvin's Camels."
But apparently, now that I look into it, Cloud is something of a big deal in independent, fundamentalist Baptist circles. He's ministered for over thirty years. Nary a bad word to say about him, personally. I want to stress that I am not here attacking the man, David Cloud. I am examining what he wrote and comparing it to Scripture, which also demands subjecting it to the test of logic and reason. I hope God blesses David Cloud real good, okay? This is not about him, but about the arguments he has put forward to attack Calvinistic theology.
At the outset of his article, Cloud goes to some lengths to show that he has done his homework. I have no reason to doubt that he has read all the books he says he did. He is to be commended on that. But right at the beginning, I note that Cloud sets out to "muddy the waters" by blocking nearly every possible avenue a sincere Calvinist might use to answer his attack.
He writes: "Thus, while I have not read every book on this subject that could be recommended by my readers, I have made a considerable effort to understand Calvinism properly and not to misrepresent it (though I have learned that a non-Calvinist will ALWAYS be charged with misrepresentation)."
You see how that works? Now, if after reading his article, I think that he has in fact not done a good job of explaining what normal, historic, confessional Calvinism believes, my complaint is already deflected. That's what Calvinists ALWAYS do! We can therefore be dismissed if we argue thus.
Now, to be honest, I do see Calvinists on the internet argue this way all the time. I can see why a synergist would make that ALWAYS assertion. We do it a lot. But that begs the question. Is that a baseless argument that we have grown accustomed to falling back on, or are we in fact genuinely misrepresented by a great many of those who seek to argue with us?
Y'know? It's possible we say that all the time because we ALWAYS get misrepresented! The key to that is this: once we assert misrepresentation, and we go on to clarify what we really believe, then does the anti-Calvinist argue on the basis of what we say we believe, or does he persist in knocking down the straw man he has set up instead? I've got to say, my experience leans heavily in favor of the latter option.
More from Cloud:
"The Calvinist will doubtless argue that I simply don’t understand Calvinism properly, and to this I reply that if Calvinism is that complicated it can’t be the truth. "
And,
"The apostle Paul warned that it is the devil that makes theology that complicated. “But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ” (2 Cor. 11:3). "
The argument here is that Calvinism is too complex and tough to understand to be true. More mud thrown into the waters before the contest starts.
Now, the Calvinist is precluded from making any arguments that may take some brain power to understand.
Apparently, all Biblical truth must be able to be encapsulated in explanations that can fit on a Christian T-shirt, eh?
Is it really true that all the Bible's teachings are straightforward and rather easy to comprehend? Would Cloud assert this is the case when it comes to the doctrine of the Triune nature of the Godhead? The Incarnation of Christ? The "Problem of Evil?"
The gospel of Christ itself is simple, I'll grant (and I'll thank God as I do!) Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. That ain't complex. Praise God that the actual content we absolutely must know to be saved is relatively easy! That's what Paul is talking about when he mentions the simplicity that is in Christ. There ain't a lot to it, in one sense. Believe the Son of God died on a cross for your sins and rose from the dead the third day. Turn from your sins and trust in Jesus. Bingo! You're there.
But to speak as if all Biblical truth must be just so reducible as that is a hopeless overstatement. I believe it appeals to a latent (and sometimes blatant) anti-intellectualism that is part-and-parcel of modern Fundamentalism. If you have to think about it, it's prolly of the devil! Ole Slewfoot is jest tryin' to ensnare your minds with smooth-soundin' argy-ments.
More:
"If a reasonably intelligent preacher who has studied and taught the Bible diligently for 32 years and has published a Bible encyclopedia and many other Bible study books can study Calvinism with a desire to understand it properly and still not understand it, then it is far too complicated to be the truth! "
Cloud is talking about himself here, so you're not confused.
What he has done is suggest that his intellect and theological prowess is the measuring stick. If even I cannot understand it, then we may know with confidence that it is false.
A couple thoughts on this argument:
1. Every heretic in the world has published his own commentary on the Bible. The mere fact of publishing books about the Bible does not make one an expert on theology. What if they're lousy books? I'm not suggesting Cloud's are, but merely pointing out that even idiots and morons can get books published. I've published a couple myself, so there!
2. Cloud desires to honestly represent Calvinism, according to his article. I don't doubt that. But the desire does not ensure the outcome. His desire is noble, I'll grant, and I appreciate it, as a Calvinist who is sick of being misrepresented.
But the proof will be in the pudding, won't it? We will be able to tell from what you write when you start to actually discuss it, whether or not you get it. You've done some commendable reading, with a noble heart, which is all good, but which, sadly, does not gaurantee the result. We'll see.
3. The whole characterization of Calvinism as complex and intellectually over-demanding is a farce from the outset.
I personally know people of average intelligence who became Calvinists simply by reading the Bible and accepting what it told them. Somebody then had to come to them and explain what their beliefs were called.
In fact, when Reformation theology reigned supreme among Protestants in America, nearly every child was instructed in doctrines like election and substitutionary atonement. It didn't prove too taxing, even for the Sunday School set.
Heck, I understand Calvinism, and I don't have David Cloud's pedigree. How tough can it be, really?
"Of course, Calvinism is not simple by any means and this is one reason why it produces an elitist mentality. To understand Calvinism one must deal with compatibalism, monergism versus synergism, electing grace vs. irresistible grace, effectual calling vs. general calling, effective atonement vs. hypothetical atonement, libertarian free will vs. the bondage of the will, objective grace and subjective grace, natural ability and moral ability, mediate vs. immediate imputation of Adam’s sin, supralapsarianism, sublapsarianism, infralapsarianism, desiderative vs. decretive will, and antecedent hypothetical will, to name a few! "
Whew! You mean when theologians discuss theology they might actually have to use some technical terms? Oh, the humanity!!
I wonder if Cloud would eschew the use of technical terminology as he sets about to defend his Dispensational, Pretribulational, Premillennial Rapture eschatology? Or, when he's advocating the use of the King James Only, would he refrain from talking about text types, fragments, various codex's, the Textus Receptus, higher criticism, the Vulgate, the Masoretic, the Septuagint, and Alexandrian texts?
Then there is the tried-and-true canard of Calvinism producing an "elitist mentality." The funny thing about all elitist mentalities is that they get to be defined exclusively by people who feel themselves somewhere beneath the elitists. Meaning, if you sound smarter than me, I get to remark on your elitist mentality. How come brain surgeons, writing in journals about brain surgery, don't get accused of elitist mentalities by general practitioners? Or by the mailman who delivers the journal? Don't we want those guys to know more about the topic at hand than we do?
But Calvinists have an elitist mentality. In practice, this usually means, in the mouth of the synergist: "You guys think you're right! How dare you? Just because I can't figure out why you're wrong doesn't mean you're more right than I am."
"The Calvinist will further argue that the reason I have studied Calvinism and rejected it is because I think man should be equal to God. Calvinists invariably claim that the non-Calvinist doesn’t believe in God’s sovereignty. "
Well, we know Cloud is not a prophet, at least. His prediction of the future here is a little off.
I, for one Calvinist, do NOT think Cloud believes "man should be equal to God." I suspect that his theology, however, may make the will of God subservient to and dependant on the will of Man, at least in the area of faith and justification.
In contrast to what Cloud says is invariable, I do not claim the non-Calvinist disbelieves God's sovereignty. I claim the non-Calvinist believes God is not ultimately sovereign over the question of who gets saved and who doesn't. The synergist may believe in a type of sovereignty, but it is often a sovereignty "that has chosen not be sovereign." Or so it is often stated.
Continuing to muddy the waters now: "I realize that a staunch Calvinist has an answer for everything. "
Now, regardless of how solid my answers, well, that's just the way Calvinists are, an answer for everything. Apparently, it's become a bad thing to be able to consistently and even minutely defend what you believe the Scripture teaches. If you can meet every challenge to your belief system, and do it robustly, that's a strike against you. Calvinists have answers...but you don't have to listen to them, because they've always got answers! I'm not entirely certain I understand that logic, but the rhetorical effect Cloud is shooting for here is quite clear: I know Calvinists have answers for whatever I'll say hereafter, but, trust me, there's nothing to them...it's all a smokescreen. No need to consider their answers. Just wave your hand and make them go away.
Lord willing, we'll look at some of David Cloud's actual Scriptural arguments against Calvinism in later posts. Keep in mind, I'm already not allowed to be too smart, to use technical terms, to claim my views have been mis-defined for me, or to have an answer for everything. I can comply with the first requirement without even trying, but the others may well tax me.
....Now, regardless of how solid my answers, well, that's just the way Calvinists are, an answer for everything. Apparently, it's become a bad thing to be able to consistently and even minutely defend what you believe the Scripture teaches. If you can meet every challenge to your belief system, and do it robustly, that's a strike against you. Calvinists have answers...but you don't have to listen to them, because they've always got answers! I'm not entirely certain I understand that logic, but the rhetorical effect Cloud is shooting for here is quite clear: I know Calvinists have answers for whatever I'll say hereafter, but, trust me, there's nothing to them...it's all a smokescreen. No need to consider their answers. Just wave your hand and make them go away.
“I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having once believed in Jesus. Such a gospel I abhor.”
C.H.SPURGEON
It must be sad to have a faith that basically centers on saying "neener-neener, I'm right and you're oh so very wrong" to everyone else.
When the Reformation was in full flower and overtaking all of Europe with its return to Biblical Christianity along comes the Anabaptists who negate a fundamental principle of historic, orthodox Christianity, as well as preaching a defeatist pacifism in the face of Rome's aggressive deceit, thereby splintering and weakening the Reformation from within...for the next five centuries.
I truly love my reformed Baptist brethren and could worship happily alongside them any Sunday anywhere. But there is a history here that simply does not see the light of day. It is not signified for a reason. Some people enjoy the Protestant infighting.
From the introduction by Richard Bacon, First Presbyterian Manse, Rowlett, Texas: "Rev. Lee holds doctoral degrees in philosophy, jurisprudence, education, and theology. Dr. Lee's career has included callings as: official Translator for the South African Congress; Barrister of the Supreme Court of South Africa; Minister of the Word and Sacraments in both the United States and the Republic of South Africa; Professor of Philosophy; Scholar-in-Residence at a Christian "think-tank"; and Academic Dean at a North American College. Dr. Lee's articles and booklets include publications on history, law, philosophy, politics, theology, etc. His major publications include: About Sunday; Calvin on Creation; Calvin on the Sciences; A Christian Introduction to the History of Philosophy; Communism Versus Creation; Communist Eschatology; Effective Evangelism; Origin and Destiny of Man; The Central Significance of Culture; and The Covenantal Sabbath."
Everything is ultimately Rome's fault. See my comment above.
“[Calvinism] is not merely the hope of true religion in the world: it is true religion in the world — as far as true religion is in the world at all.” — B.B. Warfield
The problem with this view is so little is known about these early Christian Churches that existed prior to the Reformation by their own source documents. Also they were named by those that sought to denigrate them and misrepresent what they did to justify their persecution of them. The few source documents that we have give a different picture.
For example the Paulicians were accused of all kinds of heresies, but when their own records they called "The Key of Truth" were discovered in Armenia a different picture emerged. IOW, I put very little stock in history based on the view of a biased party. All of the churches that emerged from the Reformation did so with some of the same problems as the church they fought against. We see it in the doctrines on baptism, the Lord's Supper and especially early on the link between church and state.
The thing we forget about the Annabaptists is they persecuted by all the state churches not just the Roman Church.
“Lord, I thank thee I am not like those poor presumptuous Calvinists. Lord, I was born with a glorious free-will; I was born with power by which I can turn to thee of myself; I have improved my grace. If everybody had done the same with their grace that I have, they might all have been saved. Lord, I know thou dost not make us willing if we are not willing ourselves. Thou givest grace to everybody; some do not improve it, but I do. There are many that will go to hell as much bought with the blood of Christ as I was; they had as much of the Holy Ghost given to them; they had as good a chance, and were as much blessed as I am. It was not thy grace that made us to differ; I know it did a great deal, still I turned the point; I made use of what was given me, and others did not—that is the difference between me and them.” — An Arminian Prayer by CH Spurgeon
I am well aware of the magisterial Reformers' oppositon to the pernicious heresies of the anabaptists. We must never forget.
"Although the sovereignty of God is universal and absolute, it is not the sovereignty of blind power. It is coupled with infinite wisdom, holiness and love. And this doctrine, when properly understood, is a most comforting and reassuring one. Who would not prefer to have his affairs in the hands of a God of infinite power, wisdom, holiness and love, rather than to have them left to fate, or chance, or irrevocable natural law, or to short-sighted and perverted self? Those who reject God's sovereignty should consider what alternatives they have left." - (Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination 32)."Whom God legally saves, He experimentally saves; whom He justifies, them He also sanctifies. Where the righteousness of Christ is imputed to an individual, a principle of holiness is imparted to him; the former can only be ascertained by the latter. It is impossible to obtain a Scriptural knowledge that the merits of Christ's finished work are reckoned to my account, except by proving that the efficacy of the Holy Spirit's work is evident in my soul." - Arthur W. Pink
Spend some time reading the book I linked to. It’s solid and well-sourced.
They were created for that very purpose -- divide and conquor.
Or divide, lay down arms, and conquor.
We should never under-estimate the opposition. They are lost, but not stupid.
Amen. Spurgeon captured the Arminian’s self-congratulations perfectly.
The Pope made you say that.
SOLI DEO GLORIA!
p.s. i will procure the arminian prayer as part of my teaching on apostates.
and Amen to your offering my dear elect sister!
EXURGE CALVINISTI,ET JUDICA,CAUSAM,TUAM!
I think you missed the point I was trying to make. Bear with me. The Anabaptists were not one uniform church. They were labeled as Anabaptists by those who were opposed to them. There were a variety of different types of "Anabaptists". A Baptistic "Anabaptist" group would not have anything in common with a Pentecostal-like "Anabaptist" group or one influenced by the Romanists.
The Reformation led to freedom of worship outside state control, but it was a process that took time. To deny that there were Christian Churches outside state control prior to the Reformation is to deny history.
If they were smart would they be lost?
I know, I know only if God wills. Calvin may not have been perfect but he is one heck of a good theologian.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.