David Cloud, Erasmus, and Thread Derailment

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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.