David Cloud and the Doctrines of grace

[Stephen L Smith]

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]

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]

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]

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.

And I'll second that suggestion.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

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]

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]

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]

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!

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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."

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]

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]

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]

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

It is fair to say he has been helpful here

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

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]

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

It is fair to say he has been helpful here

No Stephen that was:

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

 

[Stephen L Smith]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.