Bro.Cloud on Southern Baptist Theological Seminary & New Evangelicalism

I think Cloud's warnings should be sifted to gain some valuable feedback. I am SBC, and I do not think the SBC is above criticism. We have lots of problems, and some of Cloud's criticisms are warranted. John R Rice criticised the SBC too, but that doesn't mean we cast him off.

Though I do not agree with everything Cloud says, I have read much on his website that is good. I believe that he has a passion for Christ and a heart for the lost ( having served for years in Nepal.) And I think he is more temperate in his speech than many here.

 

Greg,

Nobody has the time to refute Cloud's allegations one by one. To expect such is simply and plainly selfish. If you would do a little research on your own and use some discernment, you would realize that Cloud is either dishonest, disingenuous, or ignorant (or perhaps all).

However, I will make a few points contra-Cloud.

1. There is no way one can spend 3 hours on a campus the size of Southern and have any more than a superficial awareness of what is going on. I spent six years there and can testify that Cloud is almost always wrong.

2. Cloud exhibits a typical ignorance of Southern Baptist polity by speaking of Southern Baptist Convention state colleges and SBC state institution. There is no such thing. State colleges and state institutions are under the state conventions, not the SBC. The state conventions are autonomous entities, and the SBC has no control over them. There are problems with state colleges, and many Southern Baptists recognize that and have worked to change them. Two cases in point are North Greenville University and Brewton-Parker College. These schools are now quite conservative, and the liberals and moderates are quite unhappy about their shift.

3. Many SBTS alumni and not-a-few faculty members do not support the BGEA and its interaction with liberalism. However, it may take more than 3 hours on campus to understand that instead of simply trying to find support for what you already have determined.

4. The bookstore contains quite a bit of writings from a spectrum of theological persuasion. Southern students are taught to read the aberrant in order to refute it intellectually, a trait which Cloud fails to evidence.

5. The SBC practices biblical separation, as is evidenced in its withdrawal from the Baptist World Alliance because the Alliance would not dissociate from theological liberals. We do not practice the non-biblical separatism of Cloud and his followers over tertiary matters, matters of personal preference and not biblical conviction.

6. I responded to the allegation about Dr. Drinkard above. Let me simply reiterate that Dr. Drinkard is one of the last faculty members remaining from the pre-Mohler presidency and has to be approaching retirement. I can assure you that Mercer University is completely opposed to Southern Seminary, and the feeling is mutual. If Cloud would lay aside his venomous keyboard long enough to read books and articles by Drs. Mohler, Moore, Wills, Nettles, Schreiner, Ware, and others, he would know better, if he really cares for the truth.

7. Southern professors speak at liberal universities and at academic gatherings in order to give witness to biblical Christianity, not to have fellowship with liberals. Has Cloud never seen Dr. Mohler on Larry King Live? What a moronic charge.

8. The use of quotes from Iain Murray and Martyn Lloyd-Jones is laughable. Both Murray and Lloyd-Jones decried the tendency of evangelicalism to accommodate liberalism, and they also decried the militant fundamentalism which separates over tertiary preferences represented by Cloud and his followers.

9. The same could be said about the criticism of C. S. Lewis. Lewis was a literary scholar, not a biblical one. He was wrong about inerrancy, but his Chronicles of Narnia may be read with pleasure and profit. I disagree with John Calvin on paedobaptism; I think he was wrong. I still can read his writings and learn much.

10. There is too much good stuff available to be wasting one's time reading the mindless drivel of David Cloud. Cloud's site is enjoyed by those who live after the pride of the flesh. Stay on it at your peril. Instead, may I suggest such sites as www.founders.org , www.9marks.org , www.aomin.org , www.worldmag.com , and www.desiringgod.org ?

Bill

 

Your reasoning is sound, but inconsistent with the overall view of Baptists in these matters.

If someone said "Though I do not agree with everything Joel Osteen or Joyce Myers says, I have heard much from them that is good." I guarantee you, that sttement would get pounced on faster than a hundred dollar bill on the pavement.

 

I still stand behind my original statement that he is hateful. He would probably call you brother to your face then call you a fool and a heretic when you turn around. Someone can look at his site and see words like "heresy" over and over. When it is warranted it is fine. His attitude towards people that do not walk, talk and act exactly like him makes me sick.

Take it at this: I could go through doctrine and we would agree on most everything but I would still be apostate because I am SB or better yet I am not him and that makes me an apostate.

Sickening.

 

James 4:11 Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge.
12 There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?

 

Exactly Paid,

So why is Cloud judging everyone and everything in sight?

 

Ask him. I don't know his mind.

 

James 4:11 Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge.
12 There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another? </font>[/QUOTE]maybe David Cloud "the internet bum "should read your post!

 

Let's bring this on topic and when we do, let's start wrapping it up. We're nearing the three page limit, and I, for one, don't want to reach it with trifles.

 

Cloud has criticized Billy Graham,
Martin Loyld Jones, as well as others.
Was he invited to the seminary or did the Internet Bum just show up as if he is some kind of an important person.
He kinda likes himself !!!
What does he want?
Does he want the church world ( Baptist in Particular) to quit singing songs of Praise to Jesus and start singing "Hail to the Chief" to David Cloud?
He also has a form of godliness but denies the power thereof, Therefore i turn away from him.

 

Cloud could be the punchline of this old joke:

A man died and went to heaven. As St. Peter was showing him around, they went past a really large room where a diversity of people from all ethnic, cultural, and denominational backgrounds were gathered around Jesus and worshipping Him.

The man was ready to join them, but St. Peter wanted to finish the tour first. A little farther down the hall, they went past a room witch a closed door. Peering through the small window, the man saw some more people. Only they all looked the same.

"Who are they?" he asked.

St. Peter replied, "They're the Independent Fundamental Baptists. We keep them in there with the door shut because they don't want to believe there's anybody else here.
__________________________________________

All joking aside, people like Cloud make my heart sad.

 

I pity you. Anyone with this much venom is bound to poison himself. This rant, unfortunately, is not about ideas but it is an ad hominem attack against David Cloud. I thought this was what we were cussing David Cloud about. Jesus said: " Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. (Matthew 7:1-5)"

 

After reading several posts on this thread, I find it highly ironic that David Cloud is being criticized for his apparent bitterness, unpleasantness, anger, acrimony, rancor, criticisms of others and offensive outspokenness. Even if Mr. Cloud is guilty of the things of which he has been accused, it provides no basis for one responding in kind. Paul admonished: “Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men. If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good. (Romans 12:17-21)” From this thread, I can see carbon copies of Mr. Cloud on the opposing side. It appears that the rancor rubbed off on some of the posters of this thread. Now, who is taking the high road and who is taking the low road? It seems that the evil overcame the good. Shame!

 

Having already expressed my disappointment in the spirit of this thread, I want to move on to better things. This thread ought not be about David Cloud personally but about the ideas he believes and advocates. A few, to their credit, have tried to address the ideas but their posts were outstripped by the vitriolic outbursts of the embittered.

Cloud’s basic thesis seems to be that Southern Seminary and Al Mohler are New Evanglical or have New Evangelical influences. Immediately, SBC’ers bristle at such a suggestion. I do not find Cloud suggesting that the present SBC, Southern Seminary, or Al Mohler are Modernists or Liberals. He is simply arguing that they do not practice strong separatism. This is true. On the other hand, there is no question that they are orthodox Christians. However, Southern Seminary and other SBC schools were heavily influenced or dominated by Liberals in the past. Even Cloud admits that great strides have been made in the conservative resurgence. His article in no way negates these accomplishments.

Cloud defines New Evangelicalism as tolerance for liberalism or a lack of separation from liberalism. He goes further include tolerance for those who tolerate and associate with liberalism. This closely follows the definitions put forth in the two seminal Fundamentalist works on New Evangelicalism by Charles Woodbridge and John Ashbrook. From a Fundamentalist perspective, Cloud is correct in his thesis, although some points were trivial and weak, if you allow him this definition. Southern Seminary and Al Mohler are not separatist; just observe their associations including Graham, et. al.

Fundamentalists are separatists as defined by the movement in the mid-1900’s and afterwards. Fundamentalism was born in the Fundementalist-Modernist-Liberal controversy of the late 1800’s and early 1900’s. However, the SBC has never been a part of this historic Fundamentalism because they maintained their orthodoxy as a denomination decades longer than the northern denominations. Because they were so large and had their own schools, they did not fall to the German rationalism easily. Also, such men as Broadus, Manly, Boyce, et. al. stood face-to-face against liberalism and won—they fired their protégé, Crawford Toy. The SBC didn’t pussyfoot around like the Presbyterians at Princeton. However, the liberalism crept into the SBC schools decades after the Fundementalist-Modernist-Liberal controversy in the north. Therefore, the SBC was not a part of the historic Fundamentalism because they were still orthodox during the birth of Fundamentalism out of the mainline northern denominations. Hence, I cannot see why SBC’ers want to defend the Fundamentalist label for the SBC.

Furthermore, the SBC, even with its conservative resurgence, is not part of modern Fundamentalism because it has not chosen separatism. Their approach has been more of purification—a Puritan approach. So, if you allow Cloud his definition, he is correct that Southern Seminary is Neo-evangelical or has Neo-evangelical tendencies. Neo-evanglicalism is not liberalism or unbelief. It is toleration or refusing to separate. Is Neo-evanglicalism good or bad? You can choose either side and debate it. Cloud’s main point is that softness in toleration or lack of separation (i.e. Neo-evangelicalism) will ultimately lead to compromise that may negate the gains made by the conservatives. This is a point worth considering whether you agree or not. If you disagree, then you are free and open to refute, not castigate the man.

Here are the questions that this thread ought to have addressed and didn’t:
1. Is Cloud’s definition of New Evangelicalism correct?
2. Is New Evangelicalism a negative label or a bad thing? Carl Henry and others proudly assumed this label. (I still want to know why SBC’ers want to be called Fundamentalists. Even Machen, who separated from Princeton, would not accept the Fundamentalist label. Why can’t they say, “We’re not separatist Fundamentalists but we are orthodox Puritans seeking to reclaim our denomination.” Perhaps I’ll post my opinion later.)
3. Is Cloud correct in his facts and do they (some are obviously trite and inane) point to his conclusion.
4. Is Cloud correct in his conclusion that tolerance leads to eventual compromise?

One can learn and be warned even from those with whom they disagree.

 

This is an off-thread post although it is relevant to my other posts. I have posted things that exposed myself to flaming by paranoid zealots who neither understand nor care about truth and ideas. I have a long and honored SBC pedigree. However, my father and I both left the SBC some years ago and became independent Baptists because of rampant liberalism in some of the agencies and schools. I attended both Furman and North Greenville. At Furman, I saw and experienced SBC liberalism firsthand (They promised to convert me in four years). I am delighted that North Greenville has made tremendous strides since my days. What can I say about Furman?

Many of our friends and family remain in the SBC. We left over a difference of opinion of how to effectively deal with liberalism. IHMO, the independent Baptist movement was a strong force in helping the SBC clean house. Sometimes opposition helps rather than hinders. Furthermore, my hat is off to those who worked so very hard to bring about the conservative resurgence.

What amazes me is the rancor and bitterness that I now perceive coming from some SBC’ers toward independent Baptists. It is true that some independent Baptists are harsh and hateful but they have no monopoly on these traits. However, you can’t stereotype folks. Therefore, I resent any slap at me by painting all independent Baptists as mean and vitriolic.

So, don’t count me as an enemy whenever I pass judgment on the SBC or SBC seminaries. I am intimate in both camps. Criticism can be constructive. I disapprove of independent Baptists just as frequently and freely. Yes men leave a bad taste in my mouth. “Open rebuke is better than secret love. Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful. (Proverbs 27:5-6)”

 

We've hit three pages. Let's wrap it up

 

Paid,

Everything was more about his predetermined view of SBTS anyway. I've gone through the site as many here. My whole problem was not about SBTS it was about the preterdetermined position about the SB (and anyone else that is not IFB). I know many IFB's that would completely be sickened by his view. It would be different if words like apostate and heretic were not used.

Everyone's got an opinion.

By the way, in all kindness you just got on some of us for our statements. However, you just called a few people "paranoid zealots".

 

Well, I didn't name those people and the only way that anyone could identify them is if the term fitted. Also, this was for those who flame my posts. Read again. I don't think it applied to previous posters. Don't you catch the implication? I'm not too squeamish to call a spade a spade or to state a contradictory opinion. Are we wimps? There's nothing namby-pamby about Biblical Christianity. It's robust and straightforward. However, it is not mean and hateful. There's a fine line somewhere. Jesus called people vipers, hypocrites, thieves, etc.

 

Why don't you address the substantive questions I posed? Tom's right; there's enough of this drivel and bickering about inanities or personalities.
1. What is New Evanglicalism? Is Cloud's definition correct?
2. Why is it offensive to identify Southern Seminary with New Evangelicalism?
3. Why do SBC'ers want to be identified with Fundamentalism anyway? Many good conservative SBC'ers will plainly tell you that they are not Fundamentalists. I think they are correct. One can be Bible-believing, orthodox in doctrine and accept all fundamental doctrines of the faith without being a Fundamentalist. So, why are you a wannabe?
4, Does separatism draw the line between Fundamentalism and New Evangelicalism. IMHO, it does. It not a doctrinal difference but a matter of praxis.

So, don't try to pyschoanalyze me or David Cloud but please address the questions. Okay?