# David Cloud, Erasmus, and Thread Derailment



## Jash Comstock

I must admit that beyond his controversy with Luther over the nature of the will, I am not very aware of his positions. Some have labeled him a semi-pelagian (Luther and Barth) is that true? Was he heterodox in doctrine? What were his basic doctrines, and where exactly does he fit into the line of Protestant thought?


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

Well, doesn't his position contra Luther sort of tell it all?


----------



## Jash Comstock

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Well, doesn't his position contra Luther sort of tell it all?



Yeah, but I didn't know if there were other controversies.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Jash,

Here is some info from an old post of mine I excerpt and adapt for your question:

It has been said he was not “outstanding as a man of faith”, but this should be more rigorously defined and examined in the context of Erasmus’ life. Was he “outstanding” in the sense of Luther, Calvin, Owen, Edwards, or Spurgeon, to name but a few? No. Perhaps it should rather be asked, “Was he man of faith? Genuine faith?” I think this is of great import in such a discussion, where Dr. Price favorably compares Westcott and Hort to him. I think it is clear from their writings and statements the two revisers were not regenerate men. Was Erasmus? It is documented in his biographies that as a youth he had been brought up among the Brethren of the Common Life, a Roman Catholic group who followed the way of “Gerard Groote (1340-84) of Deventer. The son of a prominent merchant, he lived in a worldly manner until, in 1374, he had a conversion experience, which caused him to adopt an ascetic way of life. From 1379 he became a preacher of repentance, criticizing the clergy so severely that some of them caused him to be officially silenced. He appealed to the pope, who granted him permission to preach, but he died before this permission could reach him.” (Eldrbarry's Reformation Class: The Brethren of the Common Life)

This group “held the Bible in great awe and reverence…Erasmus through life always had a similar reverence and respect for God’s Word.” (_Lion’s History of Christianity_, p. 359)

----------

Bibliographic note: _The Christian Renaissance: a History of the Devotio Modern_ ( Century, 1924) and _The Brethren of the Common Life: Gerard Groote and the Founding of the Brotherhood_ (Eerdmans, 1950) by Albert Hyma. Hyma's thesis is that the teaching ministry of the Brethren gave birth to the Protestant Reformation. He also wrote: _Erasmus and the Humanists_. (Crofts 1930) and _The Youth of Erasmus_.

-----------
David Cloud, while critical of Erasmus for not separating from the Roman “church”, nonetheless sees in him a born-again individual. Erasmus was hated and widely spoken against for his accompanying commentary to his Greek and Latin editions of the New Testament, where he compared the Romish “church”, its false teachings, and ungodly clergy to the holy character of the apostles and New Testament saints; he revealed the glory and actual person of the Lord Jesus by making the Scriptures clear and understandable. His Greek editions rocked all of Europe. Historian J.H. Merle D'Aubigne comments on what Erasmus had done:​​The great work of the 16[SUP]th[/SUP] century was about to begin. A volume fresh from the presses of Basle had just crossed the Channel. Being transmitted to London, Oxford, and Cambridge, this book, the fruit of Erasmus’s vigils, soon found its way wherever there were friends of learning. It was the _New Testament_ of our Lord Jesus Christ, published for the first time in Greek with a new Latin translation—an event more important for the world than would have been the landing of the pretender in England, or the appearance of the chief of the Tudors in Italy. This book, in which God has deposited for man’s salvation the seeds of life, was about to effect alone, without patrons and without interpreters, the most astonishing revolution in Britain.

When Erasmus published this work, at the dawn, so to say, of modern times, he did not see all its scope. Had he foreseen it, he would perhaps have recoiled in alarm. He saw indeed that there was a great work to be done, but he believed that all good men would unite to do it with common accord. “A spiritual temple must be raised in desolated Christendom,” said he. “The mighty of this world will contribute towards it their marble, their ivory, and their gold; I who am poor and humble offer the foundation stone,” and he laid down before the world his edition of the Greek Testament. 

Then glancing disdainfully at the traditions of men, he said: “It is not from human reservoirs, fetid with stagnant waters, that we should draw the doctrine of salvation; but from the pure and abundant streams that flow from the heart of God.”

And when some of his suspicious friends spoke to him of the difficulties of the times, he replied: “If the ship of the church is to be saved from being swallowed up by the tempest, there is only one anchor that can save it: it is the heavenly word, which, issuing from the bosom of the Father, lives, speaks, and works still in the gospel.” These noble sentiments served as an introduction to those blessed pages which were to reform England. Erasmus, like Caiaphas, prophesied without being aware of it.

The New Testament in Greek and Latin had hardly appeared when it was received by all men of upright mind with unprecedented enthusiasm. Never had any book produced such a sensation. It was in every hand: men struggled to procure it, read it eagerly, and would even kiss it. The words it contained enlightened every heart. but a reaction soon took place. Traditional Catholicism uttered a cry from the depths of its noisome pools (to use Erasmus's figure). Franciscans and Dominicans, priests and bishops, not daring to attack the educated and well-born, went among the ignorant populace, and endeavoured by their tales and clamours to stir up susceptible women and credulous men. “Here are horrible heresies,” they exclaimed, “here are frightful antichrists! If this book be tolerated it will be the death of the papacy!” “We must drive this man from the university,” said one. “We must turn him out of the church,” added another. “The public places re-echoed with their howlings,” said Erasmus. The firebrands tossed by their furious hands were raising fires in every quarter; and the flames kindled in a few obscure convents threatened to spread over the whole country.

The irritation was not without a cause. The book indeed contained nothing but Latin and Greek: but this first step seemed to auger another—the translation of the Bible into the vulgar tongue. Erasmus loudly called for it. “Perhaps it may be necessary to conceal the secrets of kings,” he remarked, “but we must publish the mysteries of Christ. The Holy Scriptures, translated into all languages, should be read not only by the Scotch and Irish, but even by Turks and Saracens. the husbandman should sing them as he holds the handle of his plough, the weaver repeat them as he plies his shuttle, and the weary traveler, halting on his journey, refresh him under some shady tree by these godly narratives.” These words prefigured a golden age after the iron age of popery. A number of Christian families in Britain and on the continent were soon to realize these evangelical forebodings, and England was to endeavor to carry them out for the benefit of all the nations on the face of the earth.

The priests saw the danger, and by a skillful maneuver, instead of finding fault with the Greek Testament, attacked the translation and the translator. “He has corrected the Vulgate,” they said, “and puts himself in the place of Saint Jerome. He sets aside a work authorized by the consent of ages and inspired by the Holy Ghost. What audacity!” and then, turning over the pages, they pointed out the most odious passages: “Look here! This book calls upon men to repent, instead of requiring them, as the Vulgate does, to do penance!” (Matt. 9:17). The priests thundered against him from their pulpits: “This man has committed the unpardonable sin,” they asserted, “for he maintains that there is nothing in common between the Holy Ghost and the monks—that they are logs rather than men!”….”He's a heretic, an heresiarch, a forger! He's a goose….he's a very antichrist!” (D'Aubigne, _History of the Reformation of the Sixteenth Century_, Vol. V, pp. 153-156; in recent one-volume edition, pp. 729, 730)​ 
Cloud has quoted part of the above in his booklet. This also is from Cloud’s booklet:
The term "humanist" meant something entirely different in the sixteenth century than it means today. In December 1984 I wrote to Andrew Brown, at that time the Editorial Secretary of the Trinitarian Bible Society, and asked about the charge of Erasmus being a humanist. Brown's reply was most enlightening:​​"Erasmus was a thoroughgoing `Christian humanist' from his youth to his death. The use of the word `humanist' in the Renaissance and Reformation period does not in any way share the atheistic connotations which that word now has in popular usage. A `humanist' in that period was simply someone who was interested in classical literature, culture and education, as a means of attaining a higher standard of civilised life. Stephanus, Calvin and Beza were all humanists in this sense, and it is these `humanist' ideals which have largely shaped Western culture in the succeeding centuries, blended with the teachings of the Christian Gospel.

"Erasmus was both a Catholic and a Reformer at the same time. He criticised many of the worst abuses and corruptions of the Catholic church, but he thought that the church should be reformed from within and that it was wrong to separate from it. He was praised and criticised by Protestants and Catholics alike. Some of his writings are highly spiritual, even if there are occasional traces of unsound doctrine. His Enchiridon (Manual of a Christian Soldier) was so edifying that it was translated into English by William Tyndale, the translator of the first printed English New Testament. I am sending separately an extract from one of his last works, the `Treatise on Preparation for Death,' which I think will satisfy you concerning his spiritual outlook. A good biography of Erasmus is R. Bainton's _Erasmus of Christendom_." (Letter from Andrew Brown of the Trinitarian Bible Society, Jan. 7, 1985.)​ 
*Erasmus’s doctrinal orthodoxy is seen in his writings*

Erasmus's own writings illustrate his doctrinal soundness and repulsion at Roman heresies. This was evidenced in his commentary to the Bible, but I want to quote from some of his other writings. We will begin with a quote from the last part of the work mentioned by Brown, Erasmus's “Manual of the Christian Soldier”. It is obvious from this that Erasmus did not follow Roman thought, but was sound at least regarding the major teachings of the Gospel. And it is certain that Erasmus was no humanist in any modern sense. As to the fundamental doctrines of the Word of God, Erasmus was orthodox.

Bainton informs us that Manual was "a resolute call to action in the Christian warfare" (p. 66). "As with Kempis and the Brethren [with whom Erasmus spent his early years], the stress is laid upon the exemplification of the gentler virtues: humility, meekness, self-effacement, tenderness, compassion, yielding rather than asserting one's due, forgiveness, love of enemies, overcoming evil with good. ... The color of monastic habits, the wearing of girdles and sandals are all inconsequential ... The sacraments, we learn, are without value apart from the spirit."

Let us hear it in Erasmus's own words. Following are quotes from "Treatise on Preparation for Death":
"Would you please Peter and Paul? Then emulate the faith of the one and the charity of the other. Thereby you will do better than if you make ten pilgrimages to Rome ... You honor a statue of Christ in wood or stone and adorned with colors. You would do better to honor the image of his mind which through the Holy Spirit is expressed in the gospels. Are you excited over the seamless robe and the napkin of Christ and yet doze over the oracles of his law? Far better that you should believe than that you should treasure at home a piece of the wood of the cross. Otherwise you are no better than Judas, who with his lips touched the divine mouth. The physical presence of Christ is useless for salvation ... In a word, let all your possessions, all your concern, all your care be directed toward the imitation of Christ, who was not born for himself, lived not to himself, died not to himself, but for our sakes ...

"We are assured of victory over death, victory over the flesh, victory over the world and Satan. Christ promises us remission of sins, fruits in this life a hundredfold, and thereafter life eternal. And for what reason? For the sake of our merit? No indeed, but through the grace of faith which is in Christ Jesus. We are the more secure because he is first our doctor. He first overcame the lapse of Adam, nailed our sins to the cross, sealed our redemption with his blood, which has been confirmed by the testimonies of the prophets, apostles, martyrs, and virgins and by the universal Church of the saints. He added the seal of the Spirit lest we should waver in our confidence ... What could we little worms do of ourselves? Christ is our justification. Christ is our victory. Christ is our hope and security. "Unto us a child is born." Unto US, born for us, given for us. He it is who teaches us, cures our diseases, casts out demons, for us suffers hunger and thirst, is afflicted, endures the agonies of death, sweats blood, for us is conquered, wounded, dead and resurrected, and sits at the right hand of God the Father ...

"As we approach death the sacraments are not to be despised, but of greater importance is faith and charity without which all else is vain. I believe there are many not absolved by the priest, not having taken the Eucharist, not having been anointed, not having received Christian burial who rest in peace, while many who have had all the rites of the Church and have been buried next to the altar have gone to hell. There is no point in putting on a cowl. Better to resolve to live a better life if you get well. I know a noble woman who gave a large sum to a priest to have masses said for her soul at Rome. Her money might better have been spent to obligate the priest never to go to Rome. ...

"Christ said, ‘Come unto me all ye that labour.’ Take refuge then in his cave in the rocks. Flee to his wounds and you will be safe. The way to enter paradise is the way of the penitent thief. Say simply, `Thy will be done. The world to me is crucified and I to the world.'" (Erasmus, "Treatise on Preparation for Death," quoted by Roland H. Bainton, _Erasmus of Christendom_ (Charles Scribner's Sons, 1969), pp. 68, 69, 70, 269, 270.)​ 
-------------

I would like to wrap up this section on Erasmus with a couple of examples from David Cloud’s booklet (link here: MYTH # 1 ABOUT THE KJV).

So much more, of course, could be given from Erasmus's writings to illustrate the man's Bible faith and love for Christ, but we think one more quote will suffice to prove our thesis. The following was composed by Erasmus for the boys at a school established by his Bible-believing friend John Colet. Note Erasmus's love for Christ and his pure faith in the true Christ of the Bible--truly God, truly man, only Savior. And note, as well, that there is no hint here of that false Catholic mysticism which attempts to pass itself off as devotion to Christ. Give an ear to Erasmus's exhortation to these sixteenth century boys:

​​Who in all history is like to Jesus, ineffably, inconceivably God of God, born before all times, eternal and fully equal to his eternal and loftiest parent? Does not his human birth easily overshadow that of all kings? By the will of the Father and the breath of the Spirit he was born of a Virgin, a man in time and still God, unsullied by our corruption. Who is richer than he who gives all things and is not diminished? Who more illustrious as the splendor of the glory of the Father, enlightening every man that comes into the world? Who more powerful than he to whom the Father has given power in heaven and on earth? Who more mighty by whose nod the universe was established? at whose nod the sea is calm, species changed, diseases flee, armed men fall on their faces, devils are expelled, rocks rended, the dead raised, sinners repent, and all things are made new? Who is more august whom angels adore and before whom devils tremble? Who more invincible than he who has conquered death and cast down Satan from heaven? Who more triumphant than he who has harrowed hell and brought souls to heaven where he sits at the right hand of God the Father? Who is more wise than he who founded and governs the universe in harmony? Whose authority is greater than his of whom the Father said, "This is my beloved Son. Hear ye him"? Who is more to be feared than he who can cast body and soul into hell? Who more fair than he whom to behold is perfect joy? Who is more ancient than he who has no beginning and will have no end? But perhaps boys may better think of him as a boy, lying in swaddling clothes in a manger, while angels sang, shepherds adored, the animals knew him, the star stood over where he lay, Herod trembled, Simeon embraced, Anna prophesied. O humble simplicity! O sublime humility! How can thoughts conceive or words suffice to express his greatness? Better to adore than to seek to explain.​
What then shall we do, if John the Baptist said he was unworthy to unloose the latchet of his shoes? Strive, my dear boys, to sit at the feet of Jesus the teacher. (Bainton, p. 102.)​ 
In these writings we see the heart and soul of a Protestant, not a true Roman Catholic; of a Bible-believing Christian, not a humanist.

Concerning the death of Erasmus, he says,
​We read that "in 1535, he [Erasmus] again returned to Basel and died there the following year IN THE MIDST OF HIS PROTESTANT FRIENDS, without relations of any sort, so far as known, with the Roman Catholic Church." [emphasis Cloud’s] (Edward F. Hills, _The King James Version Defended_, p. 194, quoting T.A. Dorey, _Erasmus_ (London: Kegan Paul, 1970); Bainton, _Erasmus of Christendom_; W. Schwarz, _Principles and Problems of Translation_ (Cambridge: University Press, 1955), pp. 92-166; Preserved Smith, _Erasmus_, (New York: Harper, 1923).​ 
One may read these works (some made available to you in their entirety) and see that what is said about Erasmus is far from true. Both about him personally – his faith – and about his access to materials. It was not for nothing he was considered the premiere scholar in all of Europe; his access to libraries (even the Vatican’s, and its Codex B) and manuscripts throughout all Britain and Europe was unrivaled. He was a welcome guest everywhere (except the Catholic enclaves, after his publishing his NT, along with its devastating commentary on RC).

To close this section I would like to leave you with the link to Dr. E.F. Hills’ _The King James Version Defended_, (go to chapter 8) which – only 9 paragraphs in – has a good section on Erasmus, his life, and textual matters. I hope this has been of benefit in clarifying the life, heart, and work of Erasmus.

[end excerpt]


----------



## CharlieJ

David Cloud isn't a legitimate resource for any historical work, given that his entire depiction is merely a dubious polemical shroud to reinforce his preference for the Textus Receptus. 

Erasmus' mature views vis-a-vis Luther can be found in his Hyperaspistes (The Shieldbearer Defending). Though somewhat abridged, I recommend this edition: Clarence Miller, ed., _Erasmus and Luther: The Battle over Free Will_, trans. Clarence Miller and Peter Macardle (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett, 2012). For general information on Erasmus, I recommend Cornelius Augustijn, _Erasmus: His Life, Works, and Influence_, trans. G.C. Grayson (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1996). 

Cloud's problem, which afflicts many people who don't deeply understand the Reformation period but who want fodder for their agendas, is not understanding the deep legacy of Catholic reform that had existed for two centuries preceding the Reformation. There were a group of Catholics—including humanists, scholastics, and religious (often overlapping categories)—who wanted to see certain moral, structural, or theological changes in the church, sometimes based on an Augustinian ressourcement, that nevertheless did not agree with the radical changes advocated by the Lutheran and Reformed churches, to say nothing of the Anabaptists. 

Thus, many of the examples that Cloud et al. cite as evidence of Protestantism or at least anti-Catholicism are actually typical of Catholic reform, and some of those concerns are even true of Tridentine Catholicism!


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Charlie, you said, “David Cloud isn't a legitimate resource for any historical work, given that his entire depiction is merely a dubious polemical shroud to reinforce his preference for the Textus Receptus.” But then what is to stop one from saying your own depiction of him is not “merely a dubious polemical shroud to reinforce” _your_ particular textual agenda?

I think Reformation historian J. H. Merle D'Aubigne’s remarks stand on their own, as do Erasmus’s. And so what if Erasmus was part of the body of Catholic reformers – and fierce critics – within Rome’s ranks? That doesn’t detract a whit from my – or Cloud’s – depiction of him. Luther himself was bent on being a reformer within Rome, though Rome expelled him, and he then took his stand without.

You say Cloud’s “problem” is that he doesn’t deeply understand the Reformation period, and just uses it as “fodder for [his own] agendas”, though how you are able to assess his understanding is not at all clear. 

For the record: David Cloud is an IFB (Independent Fundamentalist Baptist) who does an excellent job defending the Reformation Biblical texts – Greek, Hebrew, and English, as well other language translations from these texts – and is not a timid sort but takes a strong stand on these matters (not winning him a lot of friends among those who differ). He is also a set opponent of Calvinism and its doctrines, though his published works on these matters is such that Calvinist apologists may profit by studying his objections so as to have a good weaponry against such.

But as regards defending the Protestant Reformation’s _Textus Receptus_ he is among the most astute and learned of these defenders today – as though this were a demerit, to hear you speak of it, Charlie.

It may well be the books you recommend on Erasmus are good (I am not familiar with them) though the last time you gave a recommendation (which I am aware of) on text crit matters it was a thorough flop, and poorly researched. Maybe you are more careful now, but your own agenda _contra_ the Reformation Bible is well known.

The Bible of the Reformation isn’t just some flake production of dubious characters, but a sterling work (however much out-of-fashion in these apostatizing times); what is a flake production is the Westcott and Hort usurper of said work – but then that’s another thread, and not this one!


----------



## Logan

Jerusalem Blade said:


> But as regards defending the Protestant Reformation’s Textus Receptus he is among the most astute and learned of these defenders today – as though this were a demerit, to hear you speak of it, Charlie.



Well, I too found it rather striking how people/groups who are strong supporters of the TR seem to think it absolutely necessary to defend Erasmus and the KJV translators. I don't really go for the genetic defenses, but does seem to be true that those who feel strongly about the TR seem to put Erasmus in the best possible light. It doesn't necessarily mean it's not true but it does seem like they feel they have something to gain by it.


----------



## CharlieJ

Steve, there is a fundamental difference between how you and I answer inquiries on this board. When someone asks for information, I will respond by offering the most trustworthy information, based on the recognized credentials and demonstrable expertise of the authors. You, on the other hand, simply seize onto whoever reinforces your personal beliefs. 

Case in point. David Cloud has no education or training in history generally or in the Reformation specifically. He has never written a peer-reviewed book or article on the subject. What he does write is self-published and thus contains no checks as to its quality or accuracy. I will recant this assertion if it turns out to be untrue, but I suspect that he has never even read Erasmus in his original languages because he can't read Latin. But what he does have going for him, to you, is that he agrees with you on a pet topic that you're heavily invested in. 

If this sounds harsh, I believe it's necessary. It is no small responsibility to offer information to an inquirer. I am a doctoral student in Reformation history at an elite institution. I have read hundreds of books and articles on the subject. I am proficient in French, German, and Latin (among other languages) and use them frequently to read Reformation texts in their original forms. I have personally read Erasmus in Latin, including in a first edition of his _Annotationes_. Yet, when I am asked for information, I recognize that there are those who have far more specialized knowledge than I do about Erasmus, and I defer to them. I do this out of a moral obligation to offer the best guidance possible. 

Thus, I find it irresponsible that someone would recommend a scurrilous fellow such as David Cloud, a scurrilous fellow with no expertise and credentials, a fellow whose scholarship is so poor that even Bible colleges recommend against his books, a fellow who in flagrant violation of professional etiquette flaunts an honorary doctoral degree as if it were earned.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Logan, ever the skeptic (cynic is too strong a term, I think)! I think it your epistemological methodology. I can relate, actually, but there may be too much of a good thing.

In light of Luther, Erasmus fares badly, that’s true. But to brutally trash him – demean his worth, really – as is so often the case, does reflect on the work he did. So I see bringing forth his better qualities as simply balancing the scale. I do think we’ll see him in the Kingdom.


----------



## Logan

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Logan, ever the skeptic (cynic is too strong a term, I think)! I think it your epistemological methodology. I can relate, actually, but there may be too much of a good thing.



Indeed, it runs rampant in many good engineers, though some engineers I would definitely use the term "cynic" for!


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Hello Charlie,

R.C. Sproul has a concept (I heard it in a series he did “On Developing Christian Character”) called _Judgment of Charity_, which simply means putting the best “spin”, rather than the worst, on evaluating a person, unless there is solid evidence for the latter, evidence which may include discerning a person’s motives. So when you compare our styles,
“When someone asks for information, I will respond by offering the most trustworthy information, based on the recognized credentials and demonstrable expertise of the authors. You, on the other hand, simply seize onto whoever reinforces your personal beliefs”​ 
you certainly cannot be charged guilty of exercising “Judgment of Charity”!

In these battles – and battles they are! – over the corruption or preservation of our Bibles, of course I will refer people to whomever I deem accurate and sound in their information and understanding. I will, however, not recommend folks who are abusive even though their views are good (I am evaluating even now putting some on my “do not recommend list” due to their caustic manners). I will not recommend people who go against my “personal beliefs”, as this is not a merely neutral academic business, but much of great import depends on having a trustworthy Bible. I am clear in my mind as to what I know is true, and need not hold forth those who oppose this truth, except perhaps if people ask so as to study the arguments of opponents.

Cloud may not have _formal_ education or training in Reformation history, but this does not mean he is a slouch in the area. One may _have_ such formal training yet skew things according to his or her bias. I evaluate people by research and study.

There are those who know many languages yet use their expertise to suppress the truth, such as Prof. Ehrman, who also trained at your “elite” institution (not considered “elite” anymore by many these dark days). Which is in no wise to detract from your laudable areas of study (if I had my life to live again, and a little wisdom while young, I may well have gone into linguistics, both the Biblical languages and many others – but it was in God’s providence I left my father’s lucrative businesses for poetry and literature and life on the open road in the sixties, becoming a lost desperado on whom the Lord showed mercy; I stayed with literature). My dad also graduated from Princeton (the University, not the Seminary); but I did not follow the family path.

Re Cloud: I have nowhere seen (and have searched) mention of an honorary doctorate, either given him, or “flaunted” by him. Got any documentation on that? I realize he can be harsh and negative (was not Jeremiah also?), and we may not get along personally – who knows? But I do consider him a godly man. Was not John the Baptist also harsh and negative as regards some?

“Scurrilous”? Is _that_ not scurrilous? And according to _your_ standards – now lifted quite high! – having “no expertise and credentials”, at least in the eyes of PTS and its wise fellows! I never forget the memorable saying of Machen warning against “the tyranny of experts”, and apply this to the learnèd’s assaults on the people of God. Surely some Bible colleges warn against Cloud as he warns against their textual views, for the sake of parents looking to send their children to places where their faith in God’s word will not be torn down. His scholarship and research is really good – nor do I look at it uncritically (there are some books of others I do not recommend). If you look down on the scholarly labors of the relatively unlearned you will exclude many of our Biblical characters, including the apostles! In fact, I no more trust – per se – seminary graduates, even doctors, with regard to the faith generally, than I do those not so trained, for the times are growing dark. I evaluate men individually according to their merits.

You may well be an upright and godly man (despite taking some views I think wrong), and my only contention with you is over this sort of stuff we are discussing now. Your learning may well be of great benefit to the saints. But I will defend the Biblical views that came forth out of the Reformation (though in germ in the Scriptures themselves) against all comers.

Lastly, let me say, this business of a preserved Bible is far more than “a pet topic that [I’m] heavily invested in”, it is the very foundation of our faith, and the door of entrance into the presence of our God and King. It is also the sword of the Spirit by which we cast down imaginations and strong holds exalting themselves above the knowledge of our God (cf 2 Cor 10:3-5).

Faith in this word _as intact and reliable_ is failing fast in many quarters, and this loss of trust eats away at the hearts of many. “A pet topic”? Ha! That slur doesn’t catch a fraction of the truth of it.

I’m getting older now, and don’t know how much longer the Lord will give me in this life, and so aim to leave a book behind for those who set their faces to Celestial City and see the bloody gauntlet before them on their path of pilgrimage, to strengthen and steady them. It starts out pretty dark in some spots, as I came out of great darkness, but the light grows stronger as it proceeds, as it did in my life. I could wish I knew your languages, Charlie, but I have my own works to do which God before ordained I should walk in them, and so I do.

Even more important to me than the Scripture version issue, is the great commandment we should all – who name Him – abide in brotherly love. Peace.


----------



## a mere housewife

I know Roland Bainton wrote a biography of Erasmus as well as his popular one of Luther. Any thoughts on that one?


----------



## VictorBravo

Hoping to get the thread back on track, I recall part of the original question is this:



Jash Comstock said:


> and where exactly does he fit into the line of Protestant thought?



It's not about the merits of David Cloud or anyone else. 



CharlieJ said:


> Erasmus' mature views vis-a-vis Luther can be found in his Hyperaspistes (The Shieldbearer Defending). Though somewhat abridged, I recommend this edition: Clarence Miller, ed., Erasmus and Luther: The Battle over Free Will, trans. Clarence Miller and Peter Macardle (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett, 2012).



Could you give a summary? Does it have anything to do what the original post asked for?



CharlieJ said:


> There were a group of Catholics—including humanists, scholastics, and religious (often overlapping categories)—who wanted to see certain moral, structural, or theological changes in the church, sometimes based on an Augustinian ressourcement, that nevertheless did not agree with the radical changes advocated by the Lutheran and Reformed churches, to say nothing of the Anabaptists.



Maybe you could give us some idea about, in your view, where Erasmus fit among these, and if he tended to have at least some views similar to the reformation views.


----------



## Peairtach

Mainly on his back reading a good book, with a pint of Hoegaarden to hand.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## CharlieJ

I believe Erasmus is best understood as someone who wanted to see more inward seriousness, more moral vigor, and more tolerant thoughtfulness in religion, corresponding to a decrease in formalism, ritualism, and clericalism. So, for all that, there are similarities to the Reformation, though it's important to state both that the Reformers rather inherited most of these qualities from the previous milieu of Catholic reform and that the reforms at Trent addressed at least a few of these issues. Erasmus' own ideas on reform are expressed most clearly in his Enchiridion (1503), The Praise of Folly (1511), and Sileni Alcibiadis (1515), though note that all these are pre-Luther. Many scholars believe that Erasmus muted some of his criticisms later in life in view of the Protestant reformation.

On the issue of grace and free will, Erasmus clearly does not hold an Augustinian position. In fact, through his edition of Augustine's _Opera omnia_ and his debate with Luther, Erasmus comes to recognize the difference between himself and Augustine, opting instead for the more sanguine concept of free will that he finds in Origen and Jerome. Hyperaspistes is probably the best place to see the mature Erasmus. Furthermore, he has moved away from his insistence on the relative clarity of Scripture, a position that he took early in the Enchiridion.

It needs to be clearly stated that Erasmus several times in his career disavowed Protestantism, and did so for reasons consistent with his own beliefs. He was not a crypto-Protestant or a cowardly Protestant or anything else like that. One of his most direct rejections of Protestantism, other than his controversy with Luther, was his reply (_purgatio_!) to Ulrich von Hutten, a humanist friend who became an ardent Lutheran and challenged Erasmus to do the same. Erasmus was so incensed that not only did he refuse, but he cut off all contact with his friend.

Erasmus also offered a number of replies to Reformed Protestants (Leo Jud, Jan Laski) who claimed that he supported their sacramental views. He did not, and he laid great stress on the historical consensus of the church, a move that would mark much of his later work. 

It's really necessary to have a trained historian to deal with Erasmus, because he was a figure of so much controversy and value that many people on all sides of the Reformation debates manipulated his words and cashed in on his image for polemical agendas. One absolutely cannot take at face value any one contemporary's reading of Erasmus. His own efforts to explain himself went largely unheard as people found it more useful to represent Erasmus however they liked to suit their purposes. It is really not until modern collections of the complete works of Erasmus and the rise of non-confessional historical scholarship that we've been able to move past some of these polemical images and properly contextualize him.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Thanks, Charlie.


----------



## a mere housewife

CharlieJ said:


> It is really not until modern collections of the complete works of Erasmus and the rise of non-confessional historical scholarship that we've been able to move past some of these polemical images and properly contextualize him.



I remember the impression of him as someone seeking and advocating a genuine heart religion from what I have read. I had a question about the above though -- maybe it belongs in a different thread. I have some acquaintance with the commitments of fundamentalists and I don't think it is a good perspective in which to understand the present, let alone the past. But I don't understand why people without confessional commitments are better suited to understand history? I realise that hindsight is not automatically better: it's as limited as immediate sight, but with a different set of limitations. Isn't it the development in our commitments that better enables us to understand our past and our present than we may have done in years previous? I'm not advocating that there's nothing to be gained from unconfessional historians. But the idea of neutrality transcending our own current situatedness and the loss of actual contact with many factors of the past and endowing us with magical objectivity would not be one of those things (and I don't think that can be what you are saying). Is it only that you think that people who share something of Erasmus' ambiguity are better able to assess him?


----------



## timmopussycat

a mere housewife said:


> CharlieJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is really not until modern collections of the complete works of Erasmus and the rise of non-confessional historical scholarship that we've been able to move past some of these polemical images and properly contextualize him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I remember the impression of him as someone seeking and advocating a genuine heart religion from what I have read. I had a question about the above though -- maybe it belongs in a different thread. I have some acquaintance with the commitments of fundamentalists and I don't think it is a good perspective in which to understand the present, let alone the past. But I don't understand why people without confessional commitments are better suited to understand history? I realise that hindsight is not automatically better: it's as limited as immediate sight, but with a different set of limitations. Isn't it the development in our commitments that better enables us to understand our past and our present than we may have done in years previous? I'm not advocating that there's nothing to be gained from unconfessional historians. But the idea of neutrality transcending our own current situatedness and the loss of actual contact with many factors of the past and endowing us with magical objectivity would not be one of those things (and I don't think that can be what you are saying). Is it only that you think that people who share something of Erasmus' ambiguity are better able to assess him?
Click to expand...


A confessional commitment MAY or may not lead to a relatively superficial understanding of someone who isn't a member of a major intellectual party. In the case of Erasmus, he was neither traditional Catholic nor Protestant and his positions changed over time. Where confessionally uncommitted scholarship may be helpful is when it uncovers evidence that has not been fully considered by confessionally committed scholars, who, on the Protestant side at least, have been primarily focused on other individuals, especially Luther and Calvin.


----------



## a mere housewife

Tim, that is what I thought Charlie was probably saying. I wanted to clarify because I often hear people talk about how they want an 'objective' history resource and I'm left wondering where this objectivity gets visited on some mortals -- apparently as they lack commitments. I find that so lacking in human, or Scriptural, insight about how we limited creatures live with understanding in the present as to make me very wary of the approach to the past.

That is one reason I asked about Bainton. I remember so little factually from things I read but I know he discussed Erasmus' thought, yet I have an impression of a sympathetic and even appreciative portrayal of someone with strengths and weaknesses, who did not fit either party. This though Bainton was a protestant.


----------



## timmopussycat

Bainton on Erasmus in "Here I Stand" is one demonstration of how a pre-existing commitment need not colour one's assessment of someone peripheral to one's principal subject.


----------



## CharlieJ

Dear Heidi,

I should say that when I speak of the rise of non-confessional scholarship, I mean a shift in the global academic community away from a mindset that disciplines of knowledge exist primarily to be "weaponized" in the pursuit of particular confessional, religious goals. (Much of my doctoral research deals with the relationship between confessionalization and European intellectual culture.) That is, individuals may still profess confessional allegiance and may even be informed by their confessional commitments (to some degree, who isn't?), but the _goal_ of their scholarship is not furthering a confessional agenda. Furthermore, their research takes place in an intra-confessional or non-confessional context in which they are expected to make arguments that possess a degree of factuality and cogency that is compelling to at least some people outside your in-group or whomever your research might at first glance seem to support. 

This is of course not the same thing as ultimate objectivity, which is a meaningless concept. But I believe that the processes and checks embodied in present historical scholarship do make it, on balance, better scholarship than in previous times.


----------



## a mere housewife

Thank you, Charlie. I think I understand that. I want to be careful of assuming that we sit on a pinnacle of perspective previous generations did not ascend to. That may just be evidence that I am child of my own times every bit as much as they were of theirs. But certainly even in holding fast to our commitments in the present -- being driven by polemics tends to weaken and cheapen us.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Charlie,
As usual, your careful, discriminating comments add inestimably to the discussion, especially on historical matters. For too long "revisionism" _per se_ has been treated like a bad word among preservationists/conservatives--a designation I'm not ashamed to own for myself, generally. We should never be afraid of the truth.

Revisionism is only garbage when married to post-modernist theories about the pure relativity/subjectivity of "truth."
Revisionism is _necessary_ to undercut orthodoxies with weak or non-existent foundations in fact. The Reformation itself can be viewed as revisionism.

History as a discipline cannot be "value-neutral," without being dry-as-dust and non-selective: mass aggregation of data. I have read military history that was so dull and tedious that the question of "Who won?" was hardly worth answering. Buried within the day-to-day balance of SITREPs and yards/miles gained/lost, there were perhaps a handful of gripping narrative descriptions of personnel and units caught up in the whirl of combat.

Sometimes bravery or cowardice (and everything in between) deserves to be highlighted, not because it contributes detectably to some outcome, but because it is human. And because God is in control of history, even the little things have cosmic significance. When it comes to the little things, unbelief is left only with "how well can you tell the (trivial) story, so it makes an ephemeral emotional impact." Even so, the uncovering and telling of things great and small previously overlooked or undertold, by anyone who gets a voice, is a potentially vital contribution.


I almost always read any post I see with CharlieJ's name on it. Call it an endorsement.


----------



## a mere housewife

The flip side of what Charlie is describing with the new state of things is that it will tend to its own orthodoxies of pride per an 'in' group. It seems we never individually or corporately get beyond the danger of loving something more than Truth.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Bruce, perhaps you didn’t intend an “endorsement” of Charlie’s slanderous characterization of an ordained pastor, David Cloud, but it comes across that way. I have never opposed you before, holding you in high esteem and valuing the help you have been to me personally, but I really must protest what, as respecting Charlie, is a flagrant 9[SUP]th[/SUP] Commandment violation.

On this board we seek to protect the reputations of folks not usually present here – I think of Pastor James White whom some people love to attack – so as to maintain our own (the Puritanboard’s) reputation as both a godly and intellectually vibrant and robust discussion site, as well as to deal justly and kindly with other of Christ’s people. Too often, however, a certain class of Christians has historically seemed to be fair game for impugning and reviling here, and that is the IFBs (Independent Fundamentalist Baptists), especially those who hold to the AV and TR positions. But blatant 9[SUP]th[/SUP] Commandment violations are sin whomever they are against, be they highly esteemed or lowly.

To say that Rev Cloud, “who in flagrant violation of professional etiquette flaunts an honorary doctoral degree as if it were earned”, without substantiating this, is wrong. If it can be documented – including the “flaunting” – I will let that go. If it can’t be, that should be repented of and retracted.

To call him “scurrilous” (and that twice) is a violent verbal attack, a hatchet-job on the character and professional standing of a minister of Christ, no less. Are IFBs exempted from the protection our Saviour had mandated for us to observe: “To speak evil of no man”?

This is supposed to be a godly board of gracious – even if sometimes spirited – discussion. Unmitigated vitriol ought not be part of our rhetorical repertoire, though sometimes it seems to be overlooked, particularly when unleashed upon IFBs!
*Scurrilous:* given to the use of vulgar, course, or abusive language; foul-mouthed. (American Heritage Dictionary, 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] Edition)

1. Using or given to using the language of low buffoonery; _broadly_: vulgar and evil in habit or demeanor (~ imposters who used a religious exterior to rob poor people –Edwin Benson). 2. containing low obscenities or course abuse (a ~ collection of highly obscene verses –R.A. Hall). (Webster’s Third New International Dictionary)​ 
And _I_ am taken to task as “irresponsible” for recommending “a scurrilous fellow with no expertise and credentials, a fellow whose scholarship is so poor that even Bible colleges recommend against his books”.

I _may_ concede that Charlie’s studies of Erasmus are more in-depth than Cloud’s, though I can’t be certain of that, as Cloud is well-known to be a voracious reader and a relentless collector of books on topics that interest him. That he can’t read Latin (it is possible) – even if there are good translations in English – does this make him less scholarly than one who can read a work in Latin?

What I do know is that Christ said via Paul: “Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth” (1 Cor 8:1).

Unless one is familiar with the writings of David Cloud (and I am, in the areas of Textual Criticism, CCM, and contra Rome) one should refrain from making inflammatory and scandalous judgments on his scholarship.

Is he to be reviled here on a “Puritan board” because he is aggressively Arminian? Because he is one of those dumb King James defenders? Great display of grace toward opponents we show the watching world! And that with apparent tacit approbation from the leadership here. What we show is meanness of spirit, and the looking down upon those not “formally trained”.

No doubt some Bible Colleges recommend against his books, not because the scholarship is poor, but because they don’t like the scholarship, because they don’t agree with it.

When it comes to pass such venomous disrespect is shown ministers from other camps than our own, and allowed, it bodes ill for the place, despite all its “high religion”.

This latest episode has made me the more wary of the potential hubris of the highly educated in their dealings with the lowly peons who have not such formal education. No wonder the Lord Jesus picked unlearnèd men (save Paul) to be taught of Him to lay the foundation of the New Testament church! The learnèd didn’t much like His Spirit.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Steve,
My post had nothing--absolutely nothing--to do with you, or to a single word you wrote agreeing or disagreeing with Charlie. When I wrote it, I hadn't even noticed you'd posted herein; nor had I read every post Charlie had written in this thread, much less has ever contributed to the Board as a whole.

Your reaction to my commendation led me to review the whole thread. I won't change a word of my endorsement: *If I see CharlieJ's name on a post, I want to know what he said*, so I may (most likely) grow thereby. Nobody's perfect.

I'm sorry you are choosing to make this a character issue. I did not even know D.Cloud was referenced in this thread, since I was focused on the strictly Erasmian material, per the title. [edited for questions of accuracy and for the sake of appeasing wrath/love of the brethren]

You, of course, are welcome to endorse him generally, or selectively re. subjects on which you think he's an able commentator.

Peace.


----------



## JimmyH

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Here is some info from an old post of mine I excerpt and adapt for your question:
> 
> It has been said he was not “outstanding as a man of faith”, but this should be more rigorously defined and examined in the context of Erasmus’ life. Was he “outstanding” in the sense of Luther, Calvin, Owen, Edwards, or Spurgeon, to name but a few? No. Perhaps it should rather be asked, “Was he man of faith? Genuine faith?” * I think this is of great import in such a discussion, where Dr. Price favorably compares Westcott and Hort to him. I think it is clear from their writings and statements the two revisers were not regenerate men. * Was Erasmus?


For what it's worth Steve, in AA meetings it is sometimes said that if I have one finger pointing at you, I have three pointing back at myself. Your feelings of Charlie's post on Cloud mirrors mine on your brief allusion/aspersion to Brook Foss Westcott. A man of faith demonstrated by his writings. 

Westcott and Hort Resource Centre - FAQs

B.F. Westcott and the Deity of Jesus Christ:


----------



## CharlieJ

Steve,

I retract my statement about Cloud's doctoral degree. He is often referred to as "Dr. David Cloud" by his admirers (who often flaunt their own honorary degrees!) and by people who repost his work around the internet and in their church bulletins, and I have heard him introduced as such, but I acknowledge that he does not refer to himself that way on his book covers or on his own website, Way of Life Literature. I commend him for his restraint in this area, so often not shown by his compatriots. It does not, however, change my overall opinion of the man. Though we have never met, I am quite familiar with his work from my own time in Baptist fundamentalism.


----------



## One Little Nail

CharlieJ said:


> Steve, there is a fundamental difference between how you and I answer inquiries on this board. When someone asks for information, I will respond by offering the most trustworthy information, based on the recognized credentials and demonstrable expertise of the authors. You, on the other hand, simply seize onto whoever reinforces your personal beliefs.



I believe you have falsely judged Steves methods & motives here, Neutrality is a myth, you don't have it, nobody does. just because you disagree with Steve doesn't mean that his information is not trustworthy,
The Lord Jesus was without letters, or as you put it recognized credentials, was 
He demonstrating expertise & offering trustworthy information, how about the Apostles ?
don't use your credentials around here to vaunt your supposed intellectual expertise & ELITISM, it doesn't impress anybody, please leave personal strawman attacks out of your arguments.
unless of course this is an example of your " most trustworthy information, based on the recognized credentials and demonstrable expertise of the authors ".



CharlieJ said:


> Case in point. David Cloud has no education or training in history generally or in the Reformation specifically. He has never written a peer-reviewed book or article on the subject. What he does write is self-published and thus contains no checks as to its quality or accuracy. I will recant this assertion if it turns out to be untrue, but I suspect that he has never even read Erasmus in his original languages because he can't read Latin. But what he does have going for him, to you, is that he agrees with you on a pet topic that you're heavily invested in.



Dr Cloud has purchased well over 1,500 books on the bible version controversy, he is a christian
scholar, whether you like it or not, just because he hasn't trained in a particular field doesn't mean
that he can't comment on that topic, the same goes for yourself. Though I don't endorse his soteriology or ecclesiology nor Steves eschatology doesn't mean that they are unqualified to comment on Erasmus. 



CharlieJ said:


> If this sounds harsh, I believe it's necessary. It is no small responsibility to offer information to an inquirer. I am a doctoral student in Reformation history at an elite institution. I have read hundreds of books and articles on the subject. I am proficient in French, German, and Latin (among other languages) and use them frequently to read Reformation texts in their original forms. I have personally read Erasmus in Latin, including in a first edition of his _Annotationes_. Yet, when I am asked for information, I recognize that there are those who have far more specialized knowledge than I do about Erasmus, and I defer to them. I do this out of a moral obligation to offer the best guidance possible.



Steve is a christian scholar who has written some great things here on the textual/version debate
you would do well to heed to his teaching on this matter, you're attendance at an elite institution
does not give you the right to belittle him or question his motives without proof, brother it doesn't
just sound harsh it is harsh & an apology is in order. 



CharlieJ said:


> Thus, I find it irresponsible that someone would recommend a scurrilous fellow such as David Cloud, a scurrilous fellow with no expertise and credentials, a fellow whose scholarship is so poor that even Bible colleges recommend against his books, a fellow who in flagrant violation of professional etiquette flaunts an honorary doctoral degree as if it were earned.



I also agree with Steve on this point that you have slandered David Cloud, Dr.(earned) Peter Ruckman could be called a scurrilous fellow according to the dictionary definition given by Steve,
but not Cloud, who does by the way have an earned degree, he is on record as saying that he
deplores Ruckmans use of abrasive language & has even put out a book against him.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

One Little Nail said:


> Dr Cloud has purchased well over 1,500 books on the bible version controversy, he is a christian
> scholar, whether you like it or not, just because he hasn't trained in a particular field doesn't mean
> that he can't comment on that topic, the same goes for yourself.



I am sorry Robert and Steve but I do not have a high view of David Cloud's scholarship myself. I used to follow him big time for the record, but over time I came to see his approach to scholarship is quite weak.

1. No matter how many books he has in his library, this does not make him a scholar. By the way if he had a formal debate with James White on textual criticism, I am confident White would win very comfortably [I speak as one who used to follow Mr Cloud on textual criticism]. When Mr Cloud responded to James White's book on the King James only Controversy he dealt with side issues and not the heart of the debate. Actually Mr Clouds weak scholarship was one reason i changed my views on textual criticism. 
2. His endorsement of Dave Hunts book on Calvinism shot his own credibility to flames in my opinion. He complained about Dr Whites theological complexity! As Dr White pointed out at the time, would Mr Cloud complain about the theological complexity in discussions on the Trinity. Mr Cloud does not have the reputation of being a clear thinker.
3. Dr White once dialogued with Mr Cloud on his article on John 6. Dr White refuted Cloud's article on John 6. All that happened was Mr Cloud losing his temper! 

As I said I used to be a fan of Mr Cloud but am afraid no longer.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Well, that is a lot of weighty testimony supporting Charlie, especially Pastor Bruce's. I have never heard David Cloud speak, only read his books; anyone care to give a link to an audio or two supporting said testimony? Thanks.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Stephen L Smith said:


> Dr White once dialogued with Mr Cloud on his article on John 6.



I have personally never heard of David Cloud, and so I honestly have no opinion of him. I do, however, believe that we should be consistent in how we treat people. In the above sentence, you refer to James White as "Dr" and David Cloud as "Mr." when in truth neither of them should properly be called by that title. Mr. Cloud because his is honorary, and Mr. White's because his is from a seminary that is wholly unaccredited. I know that some would protest that James White is a brilliant scholar, and I certainly would not disagree, but just because someone is brilliant and generally agrees with us does not change the rules of who should and should not be referred to as "Dr."


----------



## py3ak

We seem to have moved some distance from Erasmus. If someone wishes to continue the discussion we can do so after the Lord' Day is over (apologies to those on the other side of international date line) and after some self-examination for party spirit.

.......


Thread reopened. Stay on target or your post will be deleted.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Thanks for reopening the thread, Ruben!

As I said, I have never heard David Cloud speak (didn't even know he had a speaking ministry), and his written works are scholarly and even-handed (though polemical, and hard-hitting on occasion), so perhaps I have been sheltered. Rather than spend weeks searching for the sort of unsavory talk that has been alleged against him, I ask those who have made such strong charges against a professing brother and ordained minister to please substantiate them for me by posting some links to such. In the church, as in civil law, a person is to be considered innocent until proven guilty.

If he is not proven guilty, slander has been committed, and that publicly, and there are civil laws that do address that, as well as the law of our God.

If I am convinced that the charges are substantiated, I shall have to adjust my own views.

The reason this has even come up is because his testimony concerning the positions of Erasmus was impugned by accusations against his character primarily, and then his scholarship (not limited to historical, but textual as well). I would like to see examples substantiating both accusations. Thank you.


----------



## timmopussycat

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Thanks for reopening the thread, Ruben!
> 
> As I said, I have never heard David Cloud speak (didn't even know he had a speaking ministry), and his written works are scholarly and even-handed (though polemical, and hard-hitting on occasion), so perhaps I have been sheltered. Rather than spend weeks searching for the sort of unsavory talk that has been alleged against him, I ask those who have made such strong charges against a professing brother and ordained minister to please substantiate them for me by posting some links to such. In the church, as in civil law, a person is to be considered innocent until proven guilty.
> 
> If he is not proven guilty, slander has been committed, and that publicly, and there are civil laws that do address that, as well as the law of our God.
> 
> If I am convinced that the charges are substantiated, I shall have to adjust my own views.
> 
> The reason this has even come up is because his testimony concerning the positions of Erasmus was impugned by accusations against his character primarily, and then his scholarship (not limited to historical, but textual as well). I would like to see examples substantiating both accusations. Thank you.



And if an onlooker may make a suggestion, it will be well if examples of "shoddy scholarship" on Mr. Cloud's part are drawn from his assessment of Erasmus. Everyone on this board knows that, seen from the Reformed perspective, Martin Luther got some things wrong but that doesn't stop us from citing him approvingly where the same perspective tells us he got things right.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Jerusalem Blade said:


> As I said, I have never heard David Cloud speak (didn't even know he had a speaking ministry), and his written works are scholarly and even-handed (though polemical, and hard-hitting on occasion), so perhaps I have been sheltered. Rather than spend weeks searching for the sort of unsavory talk that has been alleged against him, I ask those who have made such strong charges against a professing brother and ordained minister to please substantiate them for me by posting some links to such. In the church, as in civil law, a person is to be considered innocent until proven guilty.


Steve, so this thread is not hijacked, I have created a new forum.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Thanks, Stephen. But where is it?

Though as far as I am concerned _this_ thread is still about Erasmus, even though defaming the character of one of the witnesses temporarily hijacked it. Faulty scholarship is another matter entirely, though that _also_ remains alleged yet unproven.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Steve, it is here.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

I am surprised no one has sought to substantiate charges that he is a “scurrilous fellow”, but have just left it as an unsupported and vicious ad hominem attack – in an initially civil discussion about the views of an historical person – leaving the accusers open to the possibility of civil redress (for defamation of character is actionable – though being a godly man who adheres to the word of God I do not believe he would sue in court) as well as ecclesiastical. I repeat some dictionary definitions of the word “scurrilous”:
*1.* making or spreading scandalous claims about someone with the intention of damaging their reputation.
*2. *Given to the use of vulgar, coarse, or abusive language; foul-mouthed.
*3. *Expressed in vulgar, coarse, and abusive language.
*4. *grossly or obscenely abusive or defamatory
*5. *characterized by gross or obscene humor
*6.* containing unkind statements about someone that are not true but that could spoil that person’s reputation​ 
*1 Cor 5:11,12 * KJV *railer* / ASV ESV NASB *reviler* / NLT *abusive* / HCSB *verbally abusive* / NIV *slanderer* : Not to eat with such a one, but “put away from among yourselves that wicked person”.

I think those translations can easily be equivalent to “scurrilous”; so what this allegation intends _by definition_ is that Pastor Cloud is a wicked and ungodly scoundrel who should be excommunicated from Christian fellowship, and the local church specifically.

In the case of alleged misconduct – and/or a lifestyle characterized by such – the burden of proof is upon the accuser(s). Failure to provide such proof leaves the accusers open to countercharges.

I have searched for such instances of verbally abusive or vulgar speech from the man, either written or audible, and have not found it. True, he speaks like an IFB – which is to say, sometimes pugnacious against perceived error, and naming those who defile holiness and what he sees as destructive heresy – but such Baptists are known for speaking so and yet remaining within the bounds of Biblical obedience; this is not “scurrilous”. Scurrilous refers to an abusive, vulgar, coarse, and slanderous person (one who a gives malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report). It does not refer to error unintended.

In a court, many are the claims made; but only those which are supported by evidence stand; the rest dismissed as false for all practical purposes.


----------



## RamistThomist

Contra_Mundum said:


> I almost always read any post I see with CharlieJ's name on it.



That is exactly what I do, also.


----------



## Phil D.

I agree, Steve. 

I don't know that much about Mr. Cloud, and thus do not take a position one way or another on his teachings. In terms of his character, unless evidence to the contrary is clearly demonstrated I will gladly extend a charitable presumption of his good will and intentions, as he is a professed follower of Christ.

I am quite surprised that those who leveled the charge against him here (or so characterized him) have so far failed to substantiate it, even though they have been specifically asked by a brother to do so. Perhaps the haven't seen your request yet. Hopefully they will yet either prove their assertions or retract them. Otherwise I too will find this whole matter to be quite troubling.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Hey Steve
Here is an article by David Cloud on Infant Baptism
He gives 9 arguments why Infant Baptism is not to be found in scripture. Surely after this scholarship by Mr Cloud all Padeobaptists on this board will now become Baptists. 

Sorry my friend I could not resist


----------



## One Little Nail

Stephen L Smith said:


> Hey Steve
> Here is an article by David Cloud on Infant Baptism
> He gives 9 arguments why Infant Baptism is not to be found in scripture. Surely after this scholarship by Mr Cloud all Padeobaptists on this board will now become Baptists.
> 
> Sorry my friend I could not resist



Some of these arguments just seem to be the standard run of the mill baptist arguments, you even get some on this forum


----------



## RamistThomist

One Little Nail said:


> Stephen L Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Steve
> Here is an article by David Cloud on Infant Baptism
> He gives 9 arguments why Infant Baptism is not to be found in scripture. Surely after this scholarship by Mr Cloud all Padeobaptists on this board will now become Baptists.
> 
> Sorry my friend I could not resist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of these arguments just seem to be the standard run of the mill baptist arguments, you even get some on this forum
Click to expand...


I listened to a sermon of his on the "Heresies of Rome," which sounded promising. Within ten minutes it simply became a screed for how they practice infant baptism.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

JimmyH,

With regard to your post #27, what am I supposed to do, open yet another rabbit trail to take us farther off topic than we have already come? In any event, I note your remarks. I must say that the links you provided were of interest to me, and edifying. Yet I have not changed my views re Westcott as a result, though I see one must proceed with more caution than I have in the past. I also see you have wisely not included Hort in your defense.

I will say that I took note when Ted Letis affirmed the regenerate status of Westcott, though I have read enough in both of the two-volume books written by Westcott’s and Hort’s sons on their fathers to have profound suspicions with regard to each of them. And not only those books, but other works by non-Christian researchers into their lives as well.

If you want to have a discussion on this, then PM me, and I will oblige you; as so often happens in threads here, folks feel perfectly at ease derailing a conversation to suit their agendas or curiosities. I’d like to keep this one on track, if that is even possible anymore.

----------

So much of the discussions on accuracy of scholarship in this and Stephen’s split thread off this one are futile! Who is a perfect scholar in a variety of fields? There are not many I trust in this regard, though I do try to ascertain what fields men or women _are_ well-informed concerning.

There are very learned Baptists, and likewise paedos, Arminians and likewise Reformed, Traditional Text adherents and likewise Critical Text holders. At least one side of these camps has got to be seriously lacking even though learned.

I also have found David Cloud to be lacking in a number of areas, but quite astute in others. He and I would probably not get along – unless we were able to agree to disagree agreeably – which possibly we couldn’t, though I still consider him a godly man; yet, regarding James White, we probably would get along quite well despite disagreeing on textual stuff and baptism – just something about the spirit of the man.

At any rate – Jash, I’m sorry this thread got so sidetracked and your good question buried in what only can be called highly unscholarly personal attacks rather than simply dealing with ideas and facts. “Poisoning the well” attacks destroy godly communications. CharlieJ’s positive post on Erasmus was edifying – it’s too bad it all couldn’t have been in that spirit.

Rather than call people vilifying names one could just show where they were wrong on a point or issue, and leave it at that. That’s effective refutation!

I think E.F. Hills’ statement, “in 1535, he [Erasmus] again returned to Basel and died there the following year in the midst of his Protestant friends, without relations of any sort, so far as known, with the Roman Catholic Church” (Edward F. Hills, _The King James Version Defended_, pp. 194,195 – and Hills cites his sources), is quite revealing. The other quotes I gave in post #4, from others and from Erasmus himself, simply because they were cited by David Cloud elicited vitriol, though they were edifying remarks.

Usually we see venomous attacks coming from the AV ranks, but there is also a poorly-concealed like phenomena coming from those who have an irrational aversion to the AV (no doubt fomented in part by the ungodly attacks of AVers), and this is why the dumping on men like Erasmus and Cloud et al. I hope there has at least been some answer to your question!

It’s too bad we, the younger brothers and sisters of the greater Son of David, cannot learn to be peaceable and friendly even when we differ on things! A CT person with whom I was having a friendly conversation here a short while ago remarked that it was too bad there weren’t more peaceable AV folks around to have conversations with – that it just might change the whole tenor of the interactions. It is really disturbing to me seeing the heavy-handedness of some learned King James people, as though if you didn’t just beat people into the dust, or scare them away by the prospect of that (being publicly ridiculed and humiliated) the truth would suffer. When in fact such behavior itself is what causes the Truth to suffer, for the Truth is the Spirit of Grace in Christ Jesus, and the great commandment to love one another is what gets trampled in the dust.

Perhaps some folks just seem to have a Samson complex – the way to deal with adversaries is to stand on a hill and beat them all down with the jawbone of an ass like Philistines. We are not, however, to “put on Samson” but to “put on Christ”!


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Jerusalem Blade said:


> So much of the discussions on accuracy of scholarship in this and Stephen’s split thread off this one are futile! Who is a perfect scholar in a variety of fields?


Actually Steve I think it is your defense of David Cloud's scholarship which is futile!

But are we not in danger of getting off topic?


----------



## au5t1n

Stephen L Smith said:


> But are we not in danger of getting off topic?



In much the same way that the Titanic is in danger of sinking.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Come on, Stephen, that wasn't meant as a swipe at you! It's just that Cloud's scholarship is uneven, and one should point to specific instances in specific areas -- in the present thread where he fails in the history of Erasmus and/or the history of textual criticism. A too broad look at this failures in scholarship misses areas where it is good.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Jerusalem Blade said:


> It's just that Cloud's scholarship is uneven, and one should point to specific instances in specific areas -- in the present thread where he fails in the history of Erasmus and/or the history of textual criticism. A too broad look at this failures in scholarship misses areas where it is good.


The problem Steve is that we have a significant difference of opinion about the quality of Cloud's scholarship. I would put it this way without getting into a lot of specifics. David Cloud would regard himself as a fundamentalist Baptist - he uses that term. I was listening to Martyn Lloyd-Jones on this today and Lloyd-Jones points out that fundamentalists (as the term is used in the USA) refers to Christians who are non intellectuals and one could say poor thinkers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=VNQyC_PwbyY You see Steve, that sums up my view of David Cloud. As someone with a high view of Reformed theology and the Reformed confessions (the very standard required of the Puritan board) I firmly believe we need to utilise people of a much higher standard than Cloud. That is the standard of Reformed theology. That explains why scholars such as James White and James Price have little time for Cloud. White refers to this type of fundamentalist non intellectualism in one of his books. 

Sure, some of David Cloud's material on Erasmus may be good and useful. The problem is given Cloud's poor scholarship on multiple levels it makes it hard to discern what is good and what is not, unless one can compare it with more scholarly works.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

I think the “problem” is otherwise, Stephen. First, a Christian minister has been slandered as to his character – his reputation hatcheted – and you want instead (glossing over the glaring sin without remark) to label him according to a worn-out stereotype of “Christians who are non intellectuals and . . . poor thinkers”. Second, you want to paint with a broad brush his entire work “without getting into a lot of specifics” as though that is righteous judgment; to my view that’s just lazy and “poor thinking”. You simply don’t _care_ “to discern what is good and what is not” and assess a man’s work fairly. Third, you seem to vaunt knowledge and scholarship above other Christian attributes; do you think you will have a closer standing with the Lord in Heaven than Pastor Cloud because you are Reformed and have “a much higher standard” of scholarship than the ignoramus Fundamentalists, despite their passion to win souls to Christ, disciple them in godly living, separation from worldliness, and courage in going out in the highways and byways of the world bearing their witness of Him, often at risk to their persons?

To assess a man’s work so sloppily, and his character (not referring to you here) so meanly – and this apparently condoned by the board here – causes us to _stink _among the non-Reformed “ignorants” in the rest of the Christian world for such arrogance and lovelessness. I hope you realize this thread, among others here, are observed by many in the Christian world, and a very bad name accrues to us thereby. 

Has the Saviour shed His blood for David Cloud, redeemed sinner with all his flaws, even as He has shed His blood for you, and for me, who at heart are not one whit better than Cloud? We need to be more gracious even when differing with brethren; we need to be more humble, realizing _our_ remaining corruption when we look at the faults of others, remembering we ourselves are worthy of death and damnation for what still remains in us, yet because we are in covenant bond with God in Christ we are given mercy undeserved. Are we not so show such merciful love to others in the greater flock, even when critiquing them?


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Steve, we could make this easy. Get David Cloud into 2 debates with James White on 2 issues:
1. The Doctrines of Sovereign grace
2. Textual Criticism
The debate should be moderated and cross-examination being an important part of the debate. Cross examination is a wonderful tool to refute shoddy thinking. 

These debates, I am confident, would establish if David Cloud is a scholar worthy of his salt.

You might be interested to know Steve that it was Mr Clouds friend, Dr DA Waite (who does have a doctorate), after his debate with James White, that caused me to question my Received Text questions. I wanted Dr D Waite to win but that did not happen.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Dear Stephen, please don’t hide behind James White. If you make the statements you should be able to back them up.

About debating with Dr. White: I’m not that quick myself thinking on my feet to fare well with James in a debate, though I can do it – and have done it – in writing, where I can take my time and research etc.

Yes, disappointing interview between Waite and White those decades ago. What I did was take notes on the points Pastor Waite failed to address so I could study to answer them myself. I don’t depend on men for the things I hold true, but on God’s word.

I must tell you, thanks for the link to that clip on MLJ – I’d never heard him in person before! Great little interview, I very much enjoyed it.

-------

Mod or admin, perhaps this thread should be finally closed, as there is little hope of returning to the topic of the OP, and real communication seems to have ceased. Thanks.


----------



## MW

The well was muddied, I think, when textual criticism was introduced in connection with Erasmus' "positions" as if one's "positions" were fundamental to good scholarship. I think we should accept that a person can be wrong on an issue and still present studied arguments in support of it, just as a person might be in the right and argue poorly. It is to be hoped that the ability to argue well is not the criterion by which truth and error is decided.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

armourbearer said:


> The well was muddied, I think, when textual criticism was introduced in connection with Erasmus' "positions" as if one's "positions" were fundamental to good scholarship. I think we should accept that a person can be wrong on an issue and still present studied arguments in support of it, just as a person might be in the right and argue poorly. It is to be hoped that the ability to argue well is not the criterion by which truth and error is decided.



 Thank you Rev. Winzer. It took us 53 posts, but I think you have hit the nail on the head.


----------



## au5t1n

I just thought Charlie was saying that David Cloud's ideas about Erasmus's views are not on the level of an academic source that one might cite as a source in a paper on Erasmus's views. My PB posts aren't a credible academic source, either, yet I like to entertain hope that I'm generally right and occasionally useful. But I'm not a scholarly source. It isn't an insult; it's just a fact. 

I also think I recall that Charlie came out of a hardcore fundamentalist upbringing, so it's not hard to understand why he could perceive someone like David Cloud as "scurrilous," and he doesn't appear to be the only one who got that impression - Rev. Buchanan evidently did.

Perhaps this thread should be renamed, "Discussion about David Cloud (not Erasmus)" or "Case study in how to derail a thread beyond recovery," so that unsuspecting search-function users do not encounter the misfortune of having to read it.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Dear Stephen, please don’t hide behind James White. If you make the statements you should be able to back them up.


All the concerns I made about about David Cloud (Calvinism and Baptism) were noted. http://www.puritanboard.com/f48/david-cloud-doctrines-grace-83119/ None of my concerns were refuted and I was very specific on a number of areas. to deal with textual criticism could take months and months! 



Jerusalem Blade said:


> I must tell you, thanks for the link to that clip on MLJ – I’d never heard him in person before! Great little interview, I very much enjoyed it.


Pleased you did enjoy the Lloyd-Jones interview. For your edification here are more classic interviews Meet Dr. Lloyd-Jones | MLJ Trust [scroll down page] and his sermons are a must Sermons | MLJ Trust


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

We will not prevail against the spirit of the dark lord and his legions among men while we bite and devour one another. Have we learned nothing of what and who we are, and how we shall prevail against the power set against us, seeking to work in us?

If we are true lightbearers in an age of madness and war we must let the light of which we are born guide us, and heed Him in this matter of grace and charity in our company; otherwise we shall be as the legions of pride who are far from Him, haters of this light that saves us from our own darkness.

We will prevail, for He sees to His own who have ears to hear; many are false who bear our name, and are known by their fruit, their lack of charity to the royal company, the absence of that one sign above all others that marks the true. Be not deceived, for many talk but do not walk.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

I'm adding this note, because I have edited my reply to Steve (above), in the interest of accuracy, and appeasing wrath/love for the brethren.

I'm not withdrawing any of my commendation of CharlieJ. I consider his views generally to be considered and weighty. His opinions are worth something to me. Often, Steve's opinions are worthy to me also; and sometimes the judgments of men are in conflict with one another. This is unfortunate, but we still may be inclined for one reason or another to side with one man over another.

I was not able to find substantiating audio-witness (available on internet) to my earlier claim to have heard DC and formed my own judgment. Because I cannot trust my own memory, and the sample is too small, I publicly withdraw my personal assessment. I do not thereby question the assessment of CharlieJ, or anyone else who is more confident in his opinion.

Finally, "scurrilous" is a _judgmental_ term. It is an _interpretation_ of a man's behavior/statements. I am aware of a most amazing accusation of "scurrilous attack" that was against a witness highlighting the (not uncommon) abusive language of the protestor! More people, I'm sure, would have stood with the reporter of the unpleasant facts, and assigned the "scurrilous" epithet back upon the accuser.

Be that as it may, because there are people and institutions that our Board--without embarrassment--warns against, this doubtless earns the PB as a whole, or particular witnesses on it, the label "scurrilous."

Here are some statements that I think are *scurrilous*, inasmuch as they seek to bring someone or another into disrepute. Not a few of them I believe are outright lies. They are all taken from DC's book, _The Calvinism Debate._ avail. here: The Calvinism Debate

"*5. It is not wise to follow John Calvin; he was unsound at the very foundation of the Christian faith.* [emphasis in the original]
Calvin never gave a testimony of the new birth

Calvin was vicious toward his enemies, acting more like a devouring wolf than a harmless sheep.

Four men who disagreed with Calvin on who should be admitted to the Lord’s Supper were beheaded, quartered, and their body parts hung in strategic locations in Geneva as a warning to others.

He [Calvin] burned Michael Servetus (for rejecting infant baptism and for denying Christ’s deity). Calvin wrote about Servetus, “One should not be content with simply killing such people, but should burn them cruelly.”

He [Calvin] treated those who disagreed with his position on election as enemies of God and of the gospel

*7. Calvinism goes back to the “church fathers” for authority instead of strictly to the new testament apostles and prophets.* [emphasis in the original]
Calvin freely acknowledged that his authority was Augustine.

WHO WAS AUGUSTINE? He was so polluted with heresy that the Roman Catholic Church has claimed him as one of its “doctors. [emphasis in the original]

Calvin believed that God plays a cruel joke upon the non-elect

Both [Calvinists and hyper-C's] twist the Scripture to suit their theology and read their theology into the plain words of Scripture.​
To one degree or another, these statements by DC are _*scurrilous*_ against Calvin, primarily; as well as Augustin, and Calvinists generally (and I avoided citing the many approved quotes in his book from other opponents). Now, if someone makes "scurrilous" statements, he IS scurrilous--maybe just a little, maybe not so much as to deserve to be characterized _overall _as such... Fine, make that distinction. But don't deny that some witnesses have this (and perhaps much more) on which they base their judgment.

For all his protests to aiming at understanding Reformed theology, and to have a modicum of respect for certain self-described (and to his thinking inconsistent) Calvinists, I do not think he is either a fair judge, or especially "scholarly" in his investigation. And if not trustworthy here, but alleged reliable elsewhere, then the wider corpus will have to be determinative of an overall evaluation.

DC is basically an apologist for a set of reinforced opinions that he is perfectly convinced is the fulness of biblical truth. And to deviate from his "confession"--which Reformed theology does at many particulars--is to embrace heresy. Not much nuance there.


I realize that in some sense, all this new post does is focus on the thread derailment. With regard to Erasmus, I could repeat a "scurrilous" allegation made against Erasmus' character by an Ivy League PhD (and an eminent Christian, now deceased). But it really can't be my view to share, since I have no other basis for it. But the man who stated it is one who I think very highly of, and suspect many others would also. That one voice is to me part of the whole chorus of presentation on the subject. His allegation, in my mind, must therefore be taken with a grain of salt.

Studying history inevitably results in evaluation of persons as well as events. We are surely wise to allow some degree of openness to having our judgments reshaped by additional data, if such material is weighty. This is true regarding Erasmus, Calvin, and Cloud.


----------



## timmopussycat

Jerusalem Blade said:


> I think the “problem” is otherwise, Stephen. First, a Christian minister has been slandered as to his character – his reputation hatcheted – and you want instead (glossing over the glaring sin without remark) to label him according to a worn-out stereotype of “Christians who are non intellectuals and . . . poor thinkers”. Second, you want to paint with a broad brush his entire work “without getting into a lot of specifics” as though that is righteous judgment; to my view that’s just lazy and “poor thinking”. You simply don’t _care_ “to discern what is good and what is not” and assess a man’s work fairly. Third, you seem to vaunt knowledge and scholarship above other Christian attributes; do you think you will have a closer standing with the Lord in Heaven than Pastor Cloud because you are Reformed and have “a much higher standard” of scholarship than the ignoramus Fundamentalists, despite their passion to win souls to Christ, disciple them in godly living, separation from worldliness, and courage in going out in the highways and byways of the world bearing their witness of Him, often at risk to their persons?
> 
> To assess a man’s work so sloppily, and his character (not referring to you here) so meanly – and this apparently condoned by the board here – causes us to _stink _among the non-Reformed “ignorants” in the rest of the Christian world for such arrogance and lovelessness. I hope you realize this thread, among others here, are observed by many in the Christian world, and a very bad name accrues to us thereby.
> 
> Has the Saviour shed His blood for David Cloud, redeemed sinner with all his flaws, even as He has shed His blood for you, and for me, who at heart are not one whit better than Cloud? We need to be more gracious even when differing with brethren; we need to be more humble, realizing _our_ remaining corruption when we look at the faults of others, remembering we ourselves are worthy of death and damnation for what still remains in us, yet because we are in covenant bond with God in Christ we are given mercy undeserved. Are we not so show such merciful love to others in the greater flock, even when critiquing them?



Very well said.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

timmopussycat said:


> Very well said.


Tim, I don't know how you can say this in light of Rev Buchanan's post which actually documents the errors better than I did! http://www.puritanboard.com/f18/david-cloud-erasmus-thread-derailment-83040/index2.html#post1044052


----------



## One Little Nail

The Reformed view of Election & Predestination always seems to draw the ire of the pelagian/semi-pelagian/arminian
crowd, didn't the High Churchman John Wesley call it many black epithets in his Predestination he wrote;

destroys all His attributes at once. It overturns both his justice, mercy and truth. Yea, it represents the most Holy God as worse than the devil…. But you say you will ‘prove it by Scripture’. Hold! What will you prove by Scripture? That God is worse than the devil? It cannot be. Whatever that Scripture proves, it never can prove this….There are many Scriptures the true sense whereof neither you or I shall know till death is swallowed up in victory. But this I know, better it were such say it had no sense at all than to say it had such a sense as this….No Scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all this works.

truly a scurrilous fellow.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

One Little Nail said:


> truly a scurrilous fellow.


The Australian constitution has provision for the Islands of New Zealand to become a state of Australia. New Zealanders recoil at such a thought. Truly we are a scurrilous people


----------



## Edward

Stephen L Smith said:


> The Australian constitution has provision for the Islands of New Zealand to become a state of Australia. New Zealanders recoil at such a thought.



Given the current state of New Zealand's defense forces, it shouldn't be much of an issue if the Aussies decide to move forward. (Given the current thread title, this comment can't derail the thread, can it?)


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Bruce,

Thank you for giving time and thought to these things, and also for amending some of your remarks. I appreciate your heart in this.

Some remarks of my own: are we now reduced to name-calling – and back-and-forth at that – with our theological opponents, even though we both name the name of Christ? For the Arminians & IFBs (these latter don’t like to be labeled Arminians) call us heretics and worse, and we reciprocate in kind.

In post #39 I gave a rather broad spectrum of definitions of “scurrilous”, and I think the one you use, Bruce (in post #58), is similar to this: “making or spreading scandalous claims about someone with the intention of damaging their reputation”, given that scandalous includes _false_.

So this then moves from Erasmus, to Cloud, and now to John Calvin. Was John Wesley “scurrilous” when he said to Whitefield, “Your God is my devil”? Well, possibly yes (for we know he blasphemed the particular-atoning God) yet he did it in error, thinking he was upholding the love, honor, and justice of God. Do we call Wesley a “scurrilous fellow”, or just one who made a scurrilous remark – or a few?

I have a dear friend who is a Wesleyan pastor, and a godly man, yet when he asked if we might labor together to evangelize a town, I had to tell him that our understandings of how God saves were so at variance we really could not do so and both keep our integrities before God. Yet we remained friends.

Now I think CharlieJ was not speaking of principled differences, but it appeared to me his remarks about Cloud issued forth from a root of bitterness (cf Heb 12:15), perhaps due to having suffered abusive and oppressive treatment among the IFBs earlier in his life (I am willing to be corrected if wrong in this). When I spent time among these folks in the ‘80s I also was subjected to verbal/spiritual abuse, but I withstood it and respectfully let it be known I would not tolerate it. Yet the preaching itself _was_ oppressive. The pastor was known to wear a sidearm in the pulpit. He’s long gone, but I remain friends with some who remain in that church (which has now become Reformed Baptist). I can see where someone could have been traumatized in such an environment. That is a mitigating factor.

The only thing in the list of scurrilous statements you mention, Bruce, which may be blatantly false is the bit about the four who differed with Calvin on the Lord’s Supper being beheaded and then quartered and hung in various locations in Geneva as a warning to others. I have not found that anywhere else in the historical literature. I may well look for an email to Pastor Cloud and ask him if there is any documentation for that. I do not doubt he will be able to come up with something, though it is indeed odd it is nowhere else spoken of. I would require proof. His views of Calvin's theology are twisted and untrue, but I wouldn't call them "outright lies" in the sense of merely fabricated and malicious.

It occurs to me that if a man is looking to find fault (oh, we wouldn’t do that here, would we?) that may well blind him in fair and sound judgment.

At any rate, in very many evangelical circles (I realize evangelical is an almost meaningless term now) Calvin has a very bad rep – a wickedly murderous one! – for how he conducted himself in Geneva, although the Reformed and Presbyterian mostly seem to take it in stride. The “Theonomists” think he did well for his severity in establishing the moral and behavioral Mosaic standards there, even when Servetus was executed at the stake. The Establishmentarians generally concur, save perhaps some would not go so far as execution. Then there is a gracious baptistic Reformed minister who takes the view that the mitigating factors of historical and political context exonerate Calvin of murderous intent, though he (the minister) believes it would not be appropriate in our current day, and that his own ecclesiology would forbid it.

The non-Reformed think it scandalous in the extreme, and revile those who embrace Calvinistic theology for its tainted association with the Reformer. So this matter of Calvin now – and how he is handled by Pastor Cloud, who is basically representative of very many – is a swirling controversy within the larger fold of the Christian faith. The view I hold – which I think is the most balanced in light of the Scriptures – is well expressed by a strict Calvinist Baptist historian; from his book,

_Church History: From the Birth of Christ to the 18[SUP]th[/SUP] Century_, by William Jones [Wiki bio entry], Vol 2, pp 238-240.
And with respect to Calvin, it is manifest, that the leading, and to me at least, the most hateful feature in all the multiform character of popery adhered to him through life—I mean the _spirit of persecution. _Holding, as I do, many doctrinal sentiments in common with Calvin, I am prompted to speak my opinion of him with the less reserve. I regard him as a man whom the Creator had endowed with transcendent talents, and have no doubt that he knew what “flesh and blood could never reveal to him.” He seems to have been blessed with an extraordinary insight into the economy of human redemption, as revealed in the sacred writings; and his vast and capacious mind took a comprehensive grasp of a system which angels contemplate with wonder and amazement, and in which they study the manifold wisdom of God. No mere man, probably, ever surpassed Calvin, in his indefatigable labours, according to the measure of his bodily strength, in making known to others the unsearchable riches of Christ Jesus, both from the pulpit and the press; and his bitterest enemies cannot deny that the progress of the Reformation was wonderfully accelerated by his means. Yet, with all these excellencies, Calvin was a persecutor! He had yet to learn, or at least how to practise, that simple lesson of the kingdom of heaven, “whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even so unto them.” Calvin could never comprehend, how another man could have as great a right to think wrong, as he himself had to think right! And that _it is_ _the sole prerogative of the King of Zion to punish His_ _enemies and the corrupters of his truth. _Upon this point his judgment was perverted by the principles of his education, and unhappily for his own character and the cause of truth, his conduct was founded upon this erroneous judgment. His behaviour throughout the whole affair of Servetus, is too well known to need any explanation in this place; but I conceive it to be the imperious [urgent, imperative -OED] duty of every friend to toleration and the rights of conscience, to express their marked abhorrence of this part of the character of Calvin. And more especially is it the duty of those, the similarity of whose theological creed to that which he contended for, hath subjected them to the imputation of being his followers. As an obscure, and humble individual of that class, I strenuously deprecate every attempt to palliate the enormity of Calvin's conduct in the instance referred to, by pleading, as many have done, that Socinus was as bitter a persecutor as himself: for until it be made apparent to my understanding how two blacks constitute one white, I must regard such pleas as extremely ill-judged. The truth is, and it ought to be avowed, that _the conduct of Calvin_ _admits of __no apology! _It was a violent outrage upon the laws of humanity as well as upon the laws of God, and has fixed a stigma upon the character of that otherwise great man, which will never be obliterated. But let not the enemies of the truth, from this take occasion, as they too often have done, to identify the spirit of persecution with the doctrines which Calvin held. His conduct, in this particular, has drawn tears of lamentation and regret from the eyes of thousands, since his time, on account of the reproach it has brought upon the way of truth, “causing it to be evil spoken of,” and it will continue to suffuse with all the consciousness of shame, the cheeks of thousands yet unborn.​ 
There likely is not a consensus on the matter of Calvin’s conduct as regards “governing” Geneva here on this board. And I think that the historic and theological literature is such that Cloud could make a case for what he thinks about Calvin, including the sources of his theology, that would exonerate his being termed scurrilous or a liar, though he (Cloud) would be in error, in my view, save for the objections well made by Wm. Jones.

I do not think this issue is going to be resolved here at PB (the matter of Calvin and ecclesiastical / political governance); and this should temper how we view people who are strongly opposed to him (and consequently to us).

I think it simply will not do for us to be calling names – and slurs and slanders at that! – back and forth with other churches, or their spokesmen. If men speak falsely about the gospel or anything that pertains thereto, we may rightly reprove such openly, even by name, but we demean ourselves – _and_ our King – by conduct unbecoming princes of His court, with childish and base revilings. He has said, “Speak not evil one of another, brethren” (James 4:11).

Are we to be known as a mean-spirited people toward those not in our immediate ranks, fault-finding, and uncouth (of all people, Presbyterians!)?

The world and its ways are too much with us. The devils gleam with pleasure to see us so, and angels sorrow to see the sons of God defiled.

We are a holy people. And we abide in love.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Jerusalem Blade said:


> We are a holy people. And we abide in love.


Steve, in a spirit of Christian charity I want to heartily agree with this - and i am not one of those Presbyterians you mentioned above


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Thank you, Stephen!

--------

A brief addendum to my above post. We are not to be culturally bound – bound to the cultures of the world. Our primary culture is the culture of God’s Kingdom, the norms of that kingdom our norms. In the world, but not of it.

The apostles were trained of Christ to transcend the norms of their cultures, while still being relevant to them, i.e., able to speak meaningfully to them.

I have a profound distrust of religious men governing civil bodies in the name of religion, such as I expressed here. Too often it has been a great bane upon humankind.


----------



## MW

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Calvin has a very bad rep – a wickedly murderous one!



Slanderers are to blame for this, be they scholarly or otherwise. One should not seek to justify them in an attempt to exercise charity. Such charity would be lifeless and loveless.


----------



## timmopussycat

Stephen L Smith said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very well said.
> 
> 
> 
> Tim, I don't know how you can say this in light of Rev Buchanan's post which actually documents the errors better than I did! http://www.puritanboard.com/f18/david-cloud-erasmus-thread-derailment-83040/index2.html#post1044052
Click to expand...


Rev. Buchanan is a poster I have a good deal of respect for but even Homer nods and he has done so here. If one is going to assert that A demonstrates poor scholarship when dealing with B, it does not prove one's case to demonstrate that A displays poor scholarship when dealing with C. The Reformed usually do not describe Martin Luther's scholarship as "scurrilous", even though, seen from that perspective, Luther got some things wrong. Why the double standard? Especially since, if Cloud is wrong on Erasmus, then the simple way to have kept the thread on topic would have been for anybody who could demonstrate that Cloud had erred to write a post demonstrating exactly where and in what fashion Cloud has erred on Erasmus. And if you review my earlier post in this thread, that is what I suggested. But on that front, the silence so far is deafening. 

And Mr. Rafalsky is absolutely right about the impact that stink that such sloppiness raises among observers.


----------



## Free Christian

I cant help but feel that if only people throughout Christian history had payed more attention to Mathew 5 vs 43 to 48, this debate now would not be happening!


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Jerusalem Blade said:


> The “Theonomists” think he did well for his severity in establishing the moral and behavioral Mosaic standards there, even when Servetus was executed at the stake. The Establishmentarians generally concur, save perhaps some would not go so far as execution.



Steve, most of the "Theonomists" do not believe that the state has the authority to punish heresy. There are some exceptions to this view, but that is a minority report among the "Theonomists". Neither R. J. Rushdoony, Greg Bahnsen, nor Gary North would have supported the execution of Servetus. Establishmentarians/confessional Reformed theologians have historically believed that soul-murder was a capital offence - especially if it was persisted in with the stiff-necked obstinance of Servetus. The Reformed were not so much interested in establishing "Mosaic" standards, as they were interested in the magistrate using his office to uphold the law of nature. As far as the Mosaic law agrees with the law of nature, it was to be observed by the magistrate. This position, however, is not the same thing as modern "Theonomy".


----------



## Phil D.

Hey, this whole thing with adding "Thread Derailment" to a subject line and then just letting er' rip is pretty cool ..!

Seriously, though, here is a synopses of some important things that need to be considered in the Servetus affair . While much of what occurred is rightly abhorrent to our modern sensibilities, there were many mitigating factors with regard to Calvin's involvement. We would do well here to avoid the fallacy Lewis coined Chronological Snobbery.


----------



## VictorBravo

Phil D. said:


> Hey, this whole thing with adding "Thread Derailment" to a subject line and then just letting er' rip is pretty cool ..!



But not for long--sorry folks.

The thread's derailment has found new tracks, and is starting to jump them too. It has run its course.

Closed.


----------

