# David Cloud and the Doctrines of grace



## Stephen L Smith (Apr 30, 2014)

I have made comments about the poor scholarship of David Cloud. It has been requested in the 'Erasmus' forum that these be substantiated so will do this. I will give links to David Cloud's criticisms on the doctrines of grace in his own words so members can see this for themselves. 

Cloud's e book on Calvinism The Calvinism Debate
His list of articles on Calvinism Calvinism
Note: This includes his endorsement of Dave Hunts terrible anti Calvinistic book

James White did to respond to David Cloud on the Calvinism issue, but I cannot find the search function on his blog!


----------



## One Little Nail (Apr 30, 2014)

Well I tend to endorse brother Cloud on the textual issues as well, coming off the Erasmus thread.
Having seen Dave Hunts work on or rather butchery of the whole Predestination/Election doctrine, I've known Cloud
endorses Hunt on these issues, they tend to be completely biased & predudiced against the plain Scriptural testimony 
on these points as it is Displayed, professed & proclaimed by the Reformed churches, particularly the Supralapsarians,
they just cannot grasp or see the truth of these matters, they have been given over to blindness, obstinacy, hardness
& a plain ole party spirit ( Indy Fundy ), we need to resist, exhort, rebuke them & their kind as well as pray for them
that God might give them light & sight & lift that blindness from them.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 1, 2014)

Stephen L Smith said:


> I have made comments about the poor scholarship of David Cloud. It has been requested in the 'Erasmus' forum that these be substantiated so will do this. I will give links to David Cloud's criticisms on the doctrines of grace in his own words so members can see this for themselves.



Stephen, may I suggest that proving David Cloud is an Arminian/anti-Calvinist is not the same thing as proving he is not a scholar.


----------



## timmopussycat (May 1, 2014)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Stephen L Smith said:
> 
> 
> > I have made comments about the poor scholarship of David Cloud. It has been requested in the 'Erasmus' forum that these be substantiated so will do this. I will give links to David Cloud's criticisms on the doctrines of grace in his own words so members can see this for themselves.
> ...



And I'll second that suggestion.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (May 1, 2014)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Stephen, may I suggest that proving David Cloud is an Arminian/anti-Calvinist is not the same thing as proving he is not a scholar.


It seems to me, Daniel, you are missing the point. The question to ask is how scholarly are his attacks on Calvinism? Does he make his case by clear exegesis, good and clear logical argumentation, and awareness of the history of scholarly thought, the history of interpretation? Or is his research shoddy? These are the types of questions one should ask.

Another way to put the argument would be for him to defend his dissertation at a respected seminary or theological institution and prove his attacks on the doctrines of grace are based on solid scholarship. I would submit to you that his work would be soon discredited and shown to be the shoddy research that it is.

If this seems harsh, read his anti Calvinistic material for yourself.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 1, 2014)

He is a good investigative reporter and should stick with Evangelical scandals. He refused to make basic distinctions in theology that it is painful to read. He probably drives more people to Calvinism than not. I remmeber a time in my life when I was angry at the Reformed world and decided to listen to Cloud for ammo. I called [insert expletive] midway through the lecture/sermon.

He also believes you can't be saved without a "powerful conversion experience," so most you guys are probably going to hell on his gloss.

All that said, I've signed up for his weekly apostasy report.


----------



## MW (May 1, 2014)

Stephen L Smith said:


> The question to ask is how scholarly are his attacks on Calvinism?



Stephen, I fail to see where you have demonstrated that his attacks on Calvinism are not scholarly. All you have shown is that he opposes Calvinism. Even were his opposition to Calvinism proven to lack scholarship, it would not demonstrate that he lacks scholarship in other areas.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 1, 2014)

Stephen L Smith said:


> I have made comments about the poor scholarship of David Cloud. It has been requested in the 'Erasmus' forum that these be substantiated so will do this. I will give links to David Cloud's criticisms on the doctrines of grace in his own words so members can see this for themselves.
> 
> Cloud's e book on Calvinism The Calvinism Debate
> His list of articles on Calvinism Calvinism
> ...



He is probably the most sophisticated fundamentalist in terms of writing and communication, but he completely avoids (as far as I can tell and I've been following his newsletters et al for fourteen years) making even the most basic distinctions in theology (indeed, in his article on the Westminster Confession he attacks that very idea of making distinctions).

His critiques (I'm using that word very loosely) of Calvinism are like Dave Hunt's and Norman Geisler's, only more pleasant.

On a related point: I am a premillennialist so I would have expected to line up with Cloud on a number of issues, but I've found his defense of premillennialism quite weak. He resorts to calling his opponents "allegorists" (sometimes it's justified, but mostly not).


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (May 1, 2014)

Hi Stephen, 

Thanks for your efforts, but as others have pointed out this is not primarily a matter of scholarship, but of error and delusional thinking in one particular area. We see this even in widely acknowledged scholars.

His best work is in textual matters, and that includes the history thereof. His work on CCM is mixed; his critiques and examination of Roman Catholicism are good. His work on Calvinism is blinded by his biases, and easily refuted.

I do believe he is a godly man given his theological limitations. This is why I have been surprised at the allegations made against his character, and require some sort of substantiation by way of proofs. Otherwise I will have to discount the reports of his "scurrilous" manner as but hearsay at best. Again, I appreciate your efforts.

I'm going to focus my efforts in the previous thread.


----------



## py3ak (May 1, 2014)

Here's a prime example of etymological/exegetical scholarship:
Did Jesus Make Alcoholic Wine?

Here's some outstanding historical scholarship on the vicious persecution of Baptists by Protestants:
The Protestant Persecutions

Reference to C.S. Lewis' "brother Arthur" does not commend his attention to detail; the sources he references in that very article would have told him that Major Warren H. Lewis was Jack's older brother, and there were only two children in that family. He speaks of "The Lord of the Rings" as filled with "witches" in distinction from wizards - something rather curious given the total absence of witches. Another interesting claim presented as fact is that "the early 'Church Fathers' were mostly heretics": Church Fathers: A Door to Rome. Guilt-by-association (e.g., one proof that Tolkien is bad is that some people who create rock and roll "music" like him) seems to be a technique that is deployed from time to time.

He may be the world's foremost authority on Erasmus and textual criticism; but the exacting care and scrupulous caution that achievement would require appear to desert him when it comes to other areas. I repeat my suggestion from earlier: a self-check for party spirit seems to be in order.


----------



## One Little Nail (May 2, 2014)

py3ak said:


> He may be the world's foremost authority on Erasmus and textual criticism; but the exacting care and scrupulous caution that achievement would require appear to desert him when it comes to other areas.



I wouldn't go that far & say he is the "world's foremost authority on Erasmus and textual criticism" but he has much 
useful infomation ( you going to reply any second now & say you had your tongue firmly planted in your cheek, no)

heres an example of some of his shoddy scholarship on calvinism, free book link;

The Calvinism Debate


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 2, 2014)

Stephen L Smith said:


> It seems to me, Daniel, you are missing the point. The question to ask is how scholarly are his attacks on Calvinism? Does he make his case by clear exegesis, good and clear logical argumentation, and awareness of the history of scholarly thought, the history of interpretation? Or is his research shoddy? These are the types of questions one should ask.
> 
> Another way to put the argument would be for him to defend his dissertation at a respected seminary or theological institution and prove his attacks on the doctrines of grace are based on solid scholarship. I would submit to you that his work would be soon discredited and shown to be the shoddy research that it is.
> 
> If this seems harsh, read his anti Calvinistic material for yourself.



Stephen, even if his anti-Calvinist material is the crassest stuff that has ever been written, this still does not prove that Dr Cloud is not a scholar. There are plenty of scholars who have written crass material, but that does not undermine their scholarship in other areas. 



armourbearer said:


> Stephen, I fail to see where you have demonstrated that his attacks on Calvinism are not scholarly. All you have shown is that he opposes Calvinism. Even were his opposition to Calvinism proven to lack scholarship, it would not demonstrate that he lacks scholarship in other areas.



Yes, Dr Cloud's critiques of Calvinism may be completely wrong theologically and yet still be scholarly. William Lane Craig is not an orthodox Calvinist, but would anyone suggest that he is not a scholar because he may have written some things at odds with Calvinistic theology?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 2, 2014)

py3ak said:


> He may be the world's foremost authority on Erasmus and textual criticism; but the exacting care and scrupulous caution that achievement would require appear to desert him when it comes to other areas. *I repeat my suggestion from earlier: a self-check for party spirit seems to be in order*.



 with Ruben. And I would just point out that I was not defending David Cloud in my earlier comments; nor am I KJV/TR-only. All I was saying is that proving he is an Arminian or proving that his critiques of Calvinism are theologically wrong does not prove he is not a scholar. Nor would the lack of scholarship in his anti-Calvinistic writings undermine the validity of his views on textual criticism. If you disagree with his views on the latter subject then it cannot be on the basis that he is an Arminian. Otherwise you are just resorting to ad hominem arguments.


----------



## Nebrexan (May 2, 2014)

Also, I noticed that Cloud believes the PCA existed in the 1930s [1] [2] when it actually was established in 1973. Instead of "scholarly," I'd place him in the category of "intelligent but sometimes careless."



py3ak said:


> Reference to C.S. Lewis' "brother Arthur" does not commend his attention to detail; the sources he references in that very article would have told him that Major Warren H. Lewis was Jack's older brother, and there were only two children in that family. He speaks of "The Lord of the Rings" as filled with "witches" in distinction from wizards - something rather curious given the total absence of witches. Another interesting claim presented as fact is that "the early 'Church Fathers' were mostly heretics": Church Fathers: A Door to Rome. Guilt-by-association (e.g., one proof that Tolkien is bad is that some people who create rock and roll "music" like him) seems to be a technique that is deployed from time to time.
> 
> He may be the world's foremost authority on Erasmus and textual criticism; but the exacting care and scrupulous caution that achievement would require appear to desert him when it comes to other areas. I repeat my suggestion from earlier: a self-check for party spirit seems to be in order.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (May 3, 2014)

For those who are arguing that I am proving that Cloud is an Arminian but that my arguments say nothing about his scholarship, I will say this:
1. I do not know if he is a scholar or not; i do not know his specific academic credentials. All I said was his scholarship is shoddy/of a very poor standard
2. I would invite you to CAREFULLY read his material on Calvinism I referenced. Ask yourself. Is this research of a standard expected of scholars? Is the exegesis, theology, church history study etc sound and showing evidence of solid research. One person above rightly said he ignores careful theological distinctions. If you read all this material CAREFULLY you will find PLENTY of evidence of poor and shoddy scholarship.
3. I said nothing of him being an Arminian as such. I was focusing on the standard of argumentation, theological research etc, etc.
4. One good example of this is in response to Dave Hunt's notorious book attacking the doctrines of grace which come out a decade ago. James White wrote a truly scholarly response to this </title> <style> </style> </head> <body link="#003399"> <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"> <html> <head> <meta name="description" content="Christian Apologetics, Theology, Information on Mormonism, Roman Catholicism, Jehovah's Witnes. As to be expected, Whites exegesis,theology, grasp of church history etc etc was very high.

How did David Cloud respond to this? As follows: [I did document this in the comment above]
JAMES WHITE WEIGHS IN AND MEETS HIS MATCH

James White, who loves to debate, has weighed in with an attempt to refute and discredit Dave Hunt’s book. White has entitled his response, “Blinded by Tradition: An Open Letter to Dave Hunt.” For those who care about what White says about the matter, his remarks can be found at http://aomin.org/DHOpenLetter.html. I will only say that White is very confused about who is blinded by tradition and that his attempt to discredit Dave Hunt’s position on Calvinism is as misguided as his attempt to discredit those who defend the Received Text and the King James Bible. Dave Hunt’s masterly reply to White can also be found on the Internet at Dave Hunt's Response to James White | thebereancall.org and in the book Debating Calvinism: Five Points Two Views, Multnomah Publishers, 2004. 

Did Mr Cloud give the response that was due to such a weighty article such as that written by White? No. He cannot. He cannot match Whites scholarship so he responds with a few silly sentences. If he was a true scholar he would do his homework and respond to James White with substantial arguments.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 3, 2014)

I think we can easily answer the Scholarship and Calvinism question: in one of his sermons he ridiculed Calvinism for using big words like infralapsarian, supralapsarian, etc. If you ridicule the most basic and necessary scholastic distinctions, you are not a scholar on this point. I grant his expertise on textual issues and on digging dirt on Evangelical compromise and apostasy. That's it, though.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (May 3, 2014)

Baroque Norseman said:


> digging dirt on Evangelical compromise and apostasy. That's it, though.


It is fair to say he has been helpful here


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (May 3, 2014)

Hello David (Nebrexan), perhaps Cloud may be excused for misnaming the Presbyterian Church in America for the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America -- there are a lot of Presbyterian churches and splinter groups!

But as noted, a person may be sloppy in one area (especially if theologically blinded), but astute in another.

Again, my primary objection is the defamation of his _*character*_ without _*any*_ substantiation. I will continue that vein in the other thread.


----------



## One Little Nail (May 4, 2014)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Baroque Norseman said:
> 
> 
> > digging dirt on Evangelical compromise and apostasy. That's it, though.
> ...



No Stephen that was:



Baroque Norseman said:


> I grant his expertise on textual issues and on digging dirt on Evangelical compromise and apostasy. That's it, though.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (May 4, 2014)

One Little Nail said:


> I grant his expertise on textual issues and on digging dirt on Evangelical compromise and apostasy. That's it, though.


Well you got half it right


----------



## Edward (May 4, 2014)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> perhaps Cloud may be excused for misnaming the Presbyterian Church in America for the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America


 Perhaps if one is willing to acknowledge and excuse a lack of scholarship. What kind of scholarship is it to fail to get basic, well known, facts right.


----------



## Marrow Man (May 4, 2014)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Hello David (Nebrexan), perhaps Cloud may be excused for misnaming the Presbyterian Church in America for the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America -- there are a lot of Presbyterian churches and splinter groups!



I believe the original name of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church was "The Presbyterian Church of [rather than in] America," and would have existed in the 1930s. That could have been his mistake. As someone suggested above, careless (but probably akin to the kind of mistake we've all made).


----------



## Edward (May 4, 2014)

Marrow Man said:


> As someone suggested above, careless (but probably akin to the kind of mistake we've all made).



I know virtually nothing about Mr. Cloud, either personally or as to the quality of his scholarship. This thread deals with the question of whether or not he is guilty of poor scholarship. Coming to the thread with an absence of bias either for or against him, it appears that the proponents of the position have made at least a _prima facie_ case for that position, and that the burden now shifts to his supporters to refute it. 

Whether or not he's attacking Catholics, which most of us would support, or Calvinism, with which attacks we would disagree, is totally irrelevant with whether his position is well researched, thought out, and presented. 




Marrow Man said:


> I believe the original name of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church was "The Presbyterian Church of [rather than in] America," and would have existed in the 1930s. That could have been his mistake.



Are you contending that this quote "1930 -- The Presbyterian Church in America approved the ordination of women as elders." from here The Modernistic Attack on the Bible In These Last Days | Modernism and here A Timeline of 20th Century Apostasy may be a reference to the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, which hadn't even been established by then (PCofA 1936, OPC 1939). 

It's clearly a reference to the Presbyterian Church in the USA (PCUSA, not to be confused with the later PC(USA)). On Mr. Cloud's part, this is not an indicia of good scholarship. It certainly shouldn't survive peer review.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 4, 2014)

As to the issue of whether he offers poor scholarship on the subpoint of Calvinism, the answer is an obvious "yes." If you don't believe me just listen to the guy (and he is usually a decent preacher. I've preached poorer sermons). This really shouldn't be up for debate. It's one of those "open and shut" cases.

Personally, I like the guy. He's had a huge influence on me. But he refuses to make basic distinctions which anyone reading Richard Muller should know (of course, that might not be entirely his fault since the Publishing World let Muller's magnum opus go out of print).


----------



## One Little Nail (May 4, 2014)

I will concede that sometimes he has sloppy not poor scholarship that's all.
p.s except when it comes to his anti- Calvinist & reformed posts, which aren't poor just bad.


----------



## MW (May 4, 2014)

The Presbyterian Church in America could be read as a generic description rather than a name of a specific church. His subsequent references to 1931 and 1936 make it clear that he was referring to the Presbyterian Church in this way. It is not uncommon for one of another denomination to make such generic references.

I am not defending his scholarship. I do not rely on this type of scholarship when it comes to the Textus Receptus and AV for the simple reason that it is fundamentalist rather than confessional. But it seems to me that some poor scholarship is being displayed in an attempt to show this man is a poor scholar.


----------



## Edward (May 4, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> The Presbyterian Church in America could be read as a generic description



The problem with that argument is that if that was his intent, proper grammar would dictate that Church, at least, would be lower case. The defense reflects more poorly upon Mr. Cloud than does the attack. 

For example, an American Baptist might be a southern baptist, but not a Southern Baptist, and a Southern Baptist could well be an American baptist, but not an American Baptist.


----------



## Marrow Man (May 5, 2014)

Edward said:


> Are you contending that this quote "1930 -- The Presbyterian Church in America approved the ordination of women as elders." from here The Modernistic Attack on the Bible In These Last Days | Modernism and here A Timeline of 20th Century Apostasy may be a reference to the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, which hadn't even been established by then (PCofA 1936, OPC 1939).



Why would you suggest that I am contending any such thing, since no reference is made to any such quote in the comment I was referring to? The original comment, btw, said "1930s," not "1930" (I did not click on the links in that post). I was only suggesting the possibility that Mr. Cloud might have gotten confused about the names (and name changes) of various Presbyterian groups, nothing more. I am largely unfamiliar with Mr. Cloud and his research. I was not defending the body of his work, but rather merely making a suggestion about a minor comment that was raised in the thread.

I once confused the Church of Christ with the United Church of Christ, in a seminary paper, no less. It was a sloppy and terrible error, to be sure. Perhaps you have never made one of that kind and in print, in which case you can be thankful; I do not have that luxury.


----------



## Edward (May 5, 2014)

Marrow Man said:


> Why would you suggest that I am contending any such thing



It wasn't a suggestion, it was a question. And it flows reasonably from the statement of yours that I quoted in reference to the materials which were under discussion. 



Marrow Man said:


> I was only suggesting the possibility that Mr. Cloud might have gotten confused about the names (and name changes) of various Presbyterian groups, nothing more.



While it is generous of you to try to excuse his error, he doesn't appear to merit your efforts in this area. 



Marrow Man said:


> Perhaps you have never made one of that kind and in print, in which case you can be thankful...



The difference being that unlike the subject of the thread, I shouldn't be held out to be a scholar, except, perhaps, in some very narrow areas of military history which have nothing to do with my life or livelihood, nor should one seek to rise to the defense of my errors. 



Marrow Man said:


> I once confused the Church of Christ with the United Church of Christ



But I hope you learned from your error rather than compounding it.


----------



## MW (May 5, 2014)

The fact is, a certain reader is imposing a certain interpretation on this man's words in order to find an error whereby he may be convicted of poor scholarship. In any scholarly field this would be regarded as prejudice.


----------



## Marrow Man (May 5, 2014)

Edward said:


> It wasn't a suggestion, it was a question. And it flows reasonably from the statement of yours that I quoted in reference to the materials which were under discussion.



Respectfully, Edward, you should have chosen your wording of that question more carefully. "Contending" has a particular connotation to it, and it reads as if you are impugning a particular motive to my statement. 

Obviously, if Cloud specifically mentions the ordination of women as elders, he is not speaking of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. As you can see from the quote in my post, however, I was not commenting on that, only what Jerusalem Blade had written; hence, the quotation in my post.


----------



## Ryan J. Ross (May 6, 2014)

I have a few questions for the interlocutors:

Where did Cloud attend for his Bachelor's? Are they even regionally accredited? On which research question or subject did he focus his graduate work? Who chaired his thesis? Did he complete a dissertation at a recognized institution? What scholars chaired? What was his thesis/argument? Was it later published by a scholarly press? How have scholars received his work? What field has he advanced by making contributions of an original nature? How did scholars respond? Has he published in any recognized scholarly journals? Were these submissions reviewed by scholars? What are his methodologies when making enquiries into particular subjects? Does he provide scholarly apparatuses? What exactly are his credentials?

I recognize Rev. Winzer's comments as a fair assessment of how Cloud's alleged shoddy scholarship has been "substantiated," but despite the burden of proof being laid on the claimant(s), it is equally problematic to disregard all evidences of unscholarly engagement with a topic, however trivial in the reader's judgment. If many thought some of the material offered was not evidence, they should probably read academic book reviews in scholarly journals. 

Lastly, I have nothing to offer on the question at hand. I am unfamiliar with the author and the body of his printed work. I do think that the above questions, while not exhaustive, are the general ways in which scholars determine who is a scholar and what amounts to scholarship. Regrettably, almost all of those questions have been ignored in the thread, to my knowledge. It should also be remembered that publishing many books on subjects of interest without making many obvious misstatements of fact and editorial errors does not necessarily make one a scholar on a subject, especially if the publisher is closely associated with you.


----------



## Ryan J. Ross (May 6, 2014)

Does anyone know any of the answers to the above questions? I read this thread with some interest.


----------



## py3ak (May 6, 2014)

What is Way of Life Literature?


----------



## RamistThomist (May 6, 2014)

He has a fairly interesting testimony


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (May 6, 2014)

Hello Ryan, welcome to PB!

Your points re assessing scholarly credentials are well taken. I do see one possible problem with them, however. When we have scholars in top notch institutions denying basic tenets of the faith – everything from the inspiration and infallibility of the Scriptures to the historicity of Genesis to the deity of Christ, etc etc – then the terms _scholar_ and _expert_ lose their meaning. When we have highly educated and acclaimed experts in the original languages of the Bible – profs in seminaries – who subtly and not so subtly undermine the reliability of its texts, then all bets are off as to the value per se of amply credentialed scholars. Indeed, there are _many_ who _are_ of value, but one can no longer trust degrees qua degrees, if one ever really could.

And when, on the other hand, there are poorly credentialed self-educated scholars, published on little-known or unknown presses, who produce excellent work, then these may carry more weight than the “acclaimed”. As an older case-in-point, consider this quote from an online article on John Bunyan:
There was one book, however, that he knew as hardly any other man in any age has known it — the Bible. His knowledge of it was not the scholar's knowledge, for he knew nothing of Greek and Hebrew or even of such Biblical criticism as existed in his own day. What he had was a verbal knowledge of the English versions that was never at fault. Many stories are told of the readiness with which he could produce apposite scriptural quotations, often to the confusion of much more learned men than himself. This intimacy with the Bible, combined with one other element, is enough to account for the substance of _The Pilgrim's Progress_. That other element is his profound acquaintance with the rustic and provincial life about him, and with the heart of the average man.​ 
One learned pastor and theologian’s widely reported view of Bunyan was this:
John Owen, generally reckoned to be the most accomplished and learned theologian that England has ever produced, was asked by the King why he was so fond of listening to the Particular Baptist John Bunyan preach, ‘to hear a tinker prate,’ as the King sarcastically expressed it. Owen replied, ‘May it please your Majesty, could I possess the tinker’s abilities for preaching, I would willingly relinquish all my learning.’​ 
Granted, there are not many Bunyans around today (Al Martin may be close), but you get my point. The thing about Cloud, in my book, is this (whatever his failings in other areas of his studies, such as Calvinism), he upholds the WCF’s view of the Reformation Bible and its texts when so many of the Reformed of today do not (we have batted this topic around for years here), and he has a very good grasp of the history of the Roman, the German rationalist and more modern liberal successful attacks on the integrity of said texts. I will admit he is not a _great_ scholar as some godly men of our day are, but he is a reliable researcher of these things to the point where he may be accounted a _good_ scholar _in this field_. This often makes him a lightning rod for the opposing camp, who seek to discredit (by various attacks) his textual work.

In fact, there are very few in our day – still living – who are competent scholars that uphold the Reformation Bible (I am referring to the Greek Textus Receptus, the Masoretic Hebrew, and the English, Dutch, French, Spanish, Arabic, etc translations thereof). In further fact, the defense of this position is severely frowned upon by the majority of the educated, scholarly, university and seminary-trained professors who school those going into the pastorate or teaching professions these days. In other words, there is a dearth of those who hold to this view in the Reformed camp. Yet among the Baptists – and especially the IFBs – there are a sizeable number, and some of them are good – if not great – scholars. Granted, they have not the advantages of growing up in academic cultures, but they do what they can.

It must be then, for those who seek understanding of the old Reformation position, to acquaint themselves with not only with the Reformation and post-Reformation divines, but the more recent such as John William Burgon, Robert Dabney, Frederick Nolan, Wilbur Pickering, Theodore Letis, Maurice Robinson, Jakob van Bruggen, E.F. Hills, and those at the Presbyterian Far Eastern Bible College (of Singapore), but also non-Reformed men like Thomas Holland, D.A. Waite, David Cloud, Jack Moorman, etc. Of course one must sift through _all_ their textual work to cull out the good from the no-so-good. One seeks understanding and information wherever one may get it, especially in times where certain veins of knowledge are scarce. There is a great crisis today (explored a little here), not only in the field of textual criticism (for that’s really what all this hoopla is about!), but in the general Christian church with regard to the reliability of the Bible.

The truth is, we (or many of us) no longer trust academics and experts per se, seeing as they have betrayed us often, though we are glad when there are highly educated and faithful men given by the Lord to serve the church. Which certainly is *not* to say that only those who hold to the Reformation Bible (the AV primarily) are faithful pastors and teachers, for there are many who believe otherwise who are bringers of God’s choice blessing (I mean that really – _shalom_) to His flock. This is a brief intro, Ryan, to the fray above.


----------



## Edward (May 6, 2014)

Ryan J. Ross said:


> Where did Cloud attend for his Bachelor's?



Does he have a degree? His web site says " he began his studies at Tennessee Temple Bible School". Most of his works appear to be self-published.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 6, 2014)

Edward said:


> Ryan J. Ross said:
> 
> 
> > Where did Cloud attend for his Bachelor's?
> ...



When I first started following his website in 2000 he did most of his work online (which was probably a genius move, since it allowed him to reach A LOT of people). His "books," such as they are, are mostly collections of his articles over the years. He was one of the first people doing the E-book phenomenon--again, a fairly smart move. Far more innovative and bold than a lot of publishing companies today (sorry, couldn't resist).


----------



## Ryan J. Ross (May 6, 2014)

Steve, I am no scholar. I am completing graduate school and will be applying for PhD work next semester, Lord willing. I am a TR-KJV, EP adherent, and member of the OPC. I am in the minority, theologically. But God is faithful and I firmly believe He directed me to TR-KJV and EP. It is lamentable, as you stated, that the majority of so-called scholars find the TR position errant. I do, however, believe that scholars may have poor theology; scholarship tends to concern itself with a process, not necessarily the scholar's conclusion.

One can investigate the Civil War in a scholarly way, but conclude that slavery played only a minor role. Scholars, then, would critically evaluate his primary sources and determine how representative they might be. Further, they would assess how well that scholar has engaged the evidence presented by other scholars in secondary works. This is a scholarly process. The conclusion may be wrong, however.


----------



## MW (May 6, 2014)

Ryan J. Ross said:


> scholarship tends to concern itself with a process, not necessarily the scholar's conclusion.



Good point. The Calvin v. Calvinist thesis made the basic mistake of associating scholasticism with a particular point of view. This has been corrected by those who have shown that scholasticism is merely the method of the schools and incorporates various points of view.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (May 19, 2014)

In discussing Calvin a while ago, I asserted that he had “in very many evangelical circles . . . a very bad rep – a wickedly murderous one!”

To which Rev. Winzer replied, “Slanderers are to blame for this, be they scholarly or otherwise.”

As the thread was closed and I had no opportunity to reply, I wish to here in this related thread. Rev. Winzer is surely right in what he said. It is base slander to assert so.

I’ve taken the week or so since then to think this over, and consider Calvin’s role in Geneva.

First, however, let me say that regarding a Calvin incident reported by David Cloud I (after Pastor Bruce) questioned the legitimacy of . . . I found an email for him and asked if he could provide documentation for it. He answered thus, “I sold my library three years ago and won't be able to document that for you.”

So given the absence of documentation my opinion is that the statement is false, yet I don’t doubt that he did at one time have documentation. I would think such to be something written by one of the enemies of Calvin, possibly of the “Libertine” party – or possibly others – which were expelled from Geneva and sought to damage him by various slanders and false reports. Seeing as it is nowhere recorded in responsible, even critical, histories (save for repetitions of Mr. Cloud’s charge on the internet), I must conclude it was not a truthful saying.

What Calvin did in Geneva is such a nuanced and remarkable thing it is hard to summarize. I’ve been reading through Ronald S. Wallace’s, _Calvin, Geneva, and the Reformation_, especially Part 1, “The Reformer and his City”, in which there are seven informative chapters.

After considering this, I have to repent of thinking historian William Jones’ summation I posted to be the true one and to which I held.

As the governmental and religious structures of the world (primarily those of the Holy Roman Empire) were breaking down before, during, and after the Reformation, Calvin sought to reestablish a solid ground for both a human community and a Christian church upon which men could securely base their lives in the care of God and in a stable society informed and governed by the scepter of Christ, which is His word in Scripture.

Calvin didn’t confuse these two realms, but sought to have the church be a bright exemplar of godly humanity in the Spirit and Word of Christ, and for the winsomeness and truth of their lives impact all of Genevan society. He did this not only by the preaching of the Word, and the sacraments, but by seeking to establish a just economic order wherein all were cared for and sustained, the diaconate working together with the civil authorities seeing there were no poor unhoused or unfed and unclothed. Likewise with education, he sought to establish schools – and eventually a college (headed by Theodore Beza) – that catechized the students in the Faith, as well as grounding them in the humanities and sciences. Calvin really did care about the well-being of the citizens of Geneva, without regard to persons, rich or poor, high or low.

His success in Geneva, both ecclesiastically and socially, powerfully impacted the progress of the Reformation elsewhere in the world. The church and the civil realm could work together in their respective spheres, both under the authority and guidance of the Word of God, neither trespassing the distinct realms of the other.

The execution of Servetus is also more nuanced than is often made out, this person more malign and inflammatory than is often acknowledged, and who came to Geneva from Paris (where he was expelled by the physicians whom he had reviled for not basing their medical knowledge on astrology) looking to overthrow Calvin’s teaching fueled by a personal rage toward him. He was an intelligent madman of sorts. To denounce the Deity of Christ and the triunity of the Godhead in a Christian social order such as Geneva was to incur the swift force of the law against him.

Were it not for some bitter statements he made in private letters concerning his feelings and thoughts toward Servetus, Calvin would likely have fared much better in this affair. These statements did indeed show him to have a persecuting spirit toward this adversary; perhaps this came about as he virtually (though not officially) wore two hats, minister and magistrate.

There was a narrow puritanical streak in the “Consistory” – comprised of elders and others – responsible for the spiritual comportment and moral order of the townspeople, and who called upon the civil authorities to punish both moral infractions and civil crimes. These were not under Calvin’s direct authority, and he showed a weak hand in reining in – through his nonetheless powerful influence – their excessive strictness in moral oversight. He didn’t want to become embroiled in a battle when he had other more pressing matters to deal with.

It is in these two areas, the matter of Servetus and the puritanical oversight of morality in Geneva that he is most taken to task for. A civil magistrate who is a Christian can legitimately mete out punishment on lawbreakers without censure; yet Calvin was more than a civil magistrate or a Christian, he was in some respects the mostly beneficent spiritual ruler of the church (under Christ), and in other respects a beneficent ruler – or governmental manager – of the civil realm.

Whereas David failed in the matter of Uriah, I personally think Calvin failed in the matter of Servetus, though he was neither a murderer nor wicked as many allege; I think he also failed in the matter of allowing a puritanical severity to afflict the city and not reining it in. 

Thus I think William Jones, whose view I formerly held re Calvin, is too severe in his judgment, and does not take the whole picture into view (though he was no doubt more learned than I re “the whole picture”).

This business of the place of the church vis-à-vis the civil magistrate in the governance of society is one that vexes me, as I think it proper that the magistrate enact and enforce laws which ensure the moral conduct and general well-being of the social order – the life of the community. There is always a danger when the church has a strong hand in this, as it did in Calvin’s Geneva, though the spiritual-civil experiment was mostly a huge success there, showing that it could be done, to the glory of God and the power of the word and Spirit of His Christ.

The – to my view – failed experiment of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, and other church-state enterprises in the early U.S., show how in lesser hands such endeavors mostly turn out badly. Again, it seems to me that a Constitutional Republic over a moral people (under strong Christian influence) is the safest form of government this side of the return of the King, although in the hands of the immoral wicked it may be turned into a system of “order” under the devil’s sway.

Fast forward then to the almost unthinkable decline of the human condition, morally and societally, here in the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] decade of the 21[SUP]st[/SUP] century, and we see the church of Christ reviled and on its way to being outlawed not only in this land, but widely across the globe. It is God they seek to revile and outlaw, fulfilling again this from Psalm 2:1-3,
Why do the heathen rage,
and the people imagine a vain thing?
The kings of the earth set themselves,
and the rulers take counsel together,
against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,
Let us break their bands asunder,
and cast away their cords from us.​ 
And it shall be as in Revelation 11:18,
And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.​ 
Much has yet to play out, I think, before this end shall come, and I think if Calvin and the lights of the Reformation were alive on earth in our day, after their shock and utter dismay at what the world – even in once-Christian nations – has become, they would say that the true church’s task now is to bear a unified witness against the world and its increasing lawlessness, as it is written,
And they overcame him [the devil] by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death (Rev 12:11).​


----------



## Logan (May 19, 2014)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> After considering this, I have to repent of thinking historian William Jones’ summation I posted to be the true one and to which I held.



Very glad to hear this Steve. I thought Jones really missed the mark in evaluating Calvin. Like you said, Calvin played more than one role: shepherd, man, civil consultant, etc. Calvin had exchanged some 17 letters or so with Servetus, starting out genially but becoming more frustrated (by all accounts Servetus seems to be a bit arrogant and caustic). Personally, I firmly believe he would have suffered Servetus. As a shepherd, he wanted to protect his flock, and he also believed it would be the civil magistrate's duty to punish heretics such as Servetus (i.e., they were to protect the church and uphold both tables of the law, not just the ones relating to man's relations).

I was actually discussing this topic with some folks yesterday and there are some strange things surrounding Servetus' actions. He had just been arrested and imprisoned by the Roman Catholics, who intended to put him to death. He managed to escape and fled of all places to Geneva. This seems very strange but someone said Servetus' eschatalogical beliefs may have played a role: there seems to be some indication he believed himself to be the "Michael" in the book of revelation and wanted a showdown with Calvin (the dragon). Whether this is true or not I am not sure but he did seem to have some rather unique eschatalogical views.

I recall reading that the folks in Geneva considered it very important to execute Servetus lest the Roman Catholics (whom he had just escaped) confirm their claims that they harbored heresy within their ranks (not that this is a good reason or not). So yes, it is quite nuanced, and is unfamiliar to those today who think of "liberty of conscience" as a natural thing. But I'm convinced Calvin's role was far less than the claim is often made, and that it wasn't a stance that was made hastily or without a firm conviction that this was how God had ordained the magistrate to protect the church.


----------



## MW (May 19, 2014)

Steve, I am also glad you were able to look at the claims against Calvin in their own light and come to an impartial judgment. All one should look for in a steward is faithfulness in serving the Lord. He is not to be blamed for the things that happen around him over which he has no control. Matters might have been far worse without that godly influence.


----------

