Bro.Cloud on Southern Baptist Theological Seminary & New Evangelicalism

[Bible-boy]

Originally posted by Gregory Perry Sr.:
While I know that much of what Bro.Cloud has to say is controversial,I find that not too many people (including some here on the B.B.) will go toe to toe with him on a debate. After reading the above responses I find that most of you simply object to what he has to say simply because he doesn't support the SBC.I haven't noticed anyone refuting his assertions in regards to the seminaries apparent New Evangelical leanings nor their endorsement or support of Dr.Graham inspite of his well-documented compromises. I'm NOT saying I agree with everything Bro.Cloud says or does but I have been blessed and informed by much of what he writes and reports on.ANY critique of the article quoted above should be centered on the charges and assertions he makes in order to be fair and balanced.Remember....I go to an SBC church right now although my background was IFB in years past.I believe I am where the Lord wants me at this time in my life but I try to be objective in what I believe and what I do.Would anyone like to REFUTE what Cloud says about SBTS based on facts....and not sentiments?Is Cloud lying about the things he said about SBTS? That's what I wanted to know......I'm trying to stay objective......and faithful to the Lord(that's MOST important)...thanks.

Greg Perry Sr.

I would point out that what brother Cloud said about the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) allowing its members to hold to Open Theism is incorrect. According to Cloud in the opening post:

Many of the professors are members of liberal and ecumenical organizations such as the Evangelical Theological Society (which allows its member to hold damnable errors such as Open Theism, which denies the foreknowledge and omniscience of God, claiming that He does not know the future perfectly) and the extremely liberal Society of Biblical Literature.

As I recall the series of events it went something like this:

Some members of the ETS wrote in support of Open Theism. At the following ETS annual meeting they debated the issue but came to no real conclusion.

Then a year passed by and at the next ETS annual meeting they brought three of their members up on charges regarding Open Theism not being in line with the ETS statement of faith. As a result of this meeting two of the ETS Scholars agreed to alter their position on Open Theism and when their published works are re-issued to edit the content regarding Open Theism. However, one scholar refused to change his position on Open Theism and he was disfellowshiped (removed from membership) from the ETS.

[ November 22, 2005, 06:54 AM: Message edited by: Bible-boy ]

 

[TomVols]

As an ETS member, I can tell you that's pretty much correct. Mr. Cloud misspoke. Let me doublecheck on whether or not Dr. Pinnock was excluded for membership.

 

[TomVols]

BTW, David Cloud is in a sense in his own little universe, but at the same time everything he writes isn't pure hogwash. His research on the Roman Catholic Church is very good along with a few other things. Put it this way I'd rather sit at the table with him than with somebody like Spong who just wrote "The Sins of the Bible" I'd rather fellowship with him than say Brian McClaren or a bunch of those "Jesus Seminar" kooks. I'd rather hang out with him than ole fancy pants in the glass Cathederal.

There is a third option, and that's not sit with either. That's what I'd do. There's no difference between Cloud and liberals at the end of the day. Cloud's attack on Bibliology, Soteriology, etc., does as much damage (If not worse) than what Spong or the toothless, impotent Jesus Seminar did or does.

I do not agree with alot of what Cloud says or writes but some of it I do. He is not however a good representation of mainstream IFB.

In my experience, he is, and that's unfortunate.

 

[TomVols]

I'm giving the 24 hour notice on this thread. We've probably covered as much as necessary. Unless there is substance germane to the topic at hand, the thread will close 9am Eastern tomorrow. Thanks!

 

[rsr]

Gregory Boyd's membership in the ETS had lapsed by the time the ETS began considering charges. The ETS membership voted 212-432 not to sustain charges against Clark Pinnock; it voted 388-231 to sustain charges against John Sanders, but that fell short of the two-thirds majority required.

 

[TomVols]

I got the name wrong, but I was thinking that while there was something strong, no one lost their membership. I don't know if Sanders will be active in ETS. I've not kept up as much with happenings there the past couple of years. I need to do so. Thanks for posting the info.

 

[shannonL]

IMHO the falling short of the two thirds majority needed to kick out Sanders and Pinnock is a prime example of where societies like the NAE and ETS fall short of what is biblically correct. I have read enough articles and and portions of Pinnock to know that man is no friend of the Scriptures nor the Gospel he is a heretic. Yet, the ETS couldn't find a majority to declare his doctrine heretical. My 11 year old daughter has enough Bible under her belt to do that.

Tom Vols,
I agree alot of the stuff cloud has espoused is harmful his views have splintered IFB ers one more time. Yet I have to disagree with you as far as him being mainstream to IFB that just isn't true. It is true that those of his "ilk" are of considerable number but not the majority.

Also, I was just in Barnes and Noble skimmimg through Spong's latest attack on christianity and the Bible as well as God. There is no way I would equate Cloud's philosophy with that of Spong's
IF people want to add unneeded burdens to bear in their christian life by making up their own standards that is one thing to spit in the face of all christians and the Lord like Spong does is a whole different matter.
Evangelicals need to denounce men like Spong straight from the pulpit. Warning their people of a wolf in sheep's clothing.

 

[Bible-boy]

Didn't Pinnock at least agree to change his position on Open Theism and that was why the ETS membership voted not to sustain charges against him?

[ November 23, 2005, 02:31 AM: Message edited by: Bible-boy ]

 

[rsr]

At the same time, I am not wanting to defend to the death everything that I wrote long ago, as if there is nothing in it that could not be improved upon, as if I am never mistaken. No, I am 100% certain that, were we to sift through the text of The Scripture Principle as we did with Most Moved Mover, some phrases would have to be improved on and some examples removed or modified. I am sure, were we to go through it carefully, changes would be in order. By analogy and in line with the October 3rd examination, I would listen carefully and accept correction. This is my way. My hope is that you may find it possible to judge me on what I am saying now than on what I may have said then. My testimony of 2003 represents my position. I am in agreement with the Chicago Declaration. I happily disown statements I may have made years ago which fall short of this standard. As I have talked to the committee and with Roger Nicole and Bruce Ware, I sense that we view the scriptures in substantially the same way.

— Clark Pinnock, statement to the ETS, March 2004

Emphasis added

FULL STATEMENT

 

[TomVols]

There is no way I would equate Cloud's philosophy with that of Spong's

I do not equate their philosophy. I do equate the results of their philosophies, which are equal. When the Biblical doctrine of Bibliology is weakened, it doesn't matter who does it or the philosophy used to weaken it. When the Biblical doctrine of soteriology is weakened, it doesn't matter who does it or the philosophy used to weaken it. There is no doubt their philosophies are different. I'd agree a heck of a lot more with Cloud than I would with Spong (I'm surprised he's even being taken seriously), but that doesn't mean that Cloud's effects are better.

Also, I was just in Barnes and Noble skimmimg through Spong's latest attack on christianity and the Bible as well as God.

This brings up a side issue. I know that some people love being able to buy Christian books at Barnes and Noble, Borders, and Books-a-Million just to name a few. But these places are not discerning. They have no problem putting Spong next to Sproul. They see no difference. But that's part and parcel of the pluralistic culture we live in At any rate, shop at Lifeway or from the good Online sellers

Evangelicals need to denounce men like Spong straight from the pulpit. Warning their people of a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Agreed. Hasn't come up in a while because his writings are not even taken seriously by many in his own camp. He's seen by many as the Matt Drudge of mainline liberal theology. But wolves like Spong, Cloud, and others, must be refuted with Scriptural teaching.

 

[TomVols]

I'm going to leave this open just a tad longer since the ETS/Pinnock discussion is fruitful. Probably few hours or so. After that, we'll have to take it all up in another thread

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Gregory Perry Sr.:
While I know that much of what Bro.Cloud has to say is controversial,I find that not too many people (including some here on the B.B.) will go toe to toe with him on a debate.

FYI, I tried to engage Cloud via e-mail once.

I asked him something on the order of, "If we must trust the CoE in the early 1600's to provide us with the only acceptable version of the Bible, can you explain what Puritans, Baptists, and others like us were running from when they risked life, family, and fortune by coming to America?"

He wrote back refusing to engage me. Seemed like a simple enough question if what he says about Bible versions is true.

His work I guess must speak for him. It is full of half-truths and distortions... like another I wrote him about where he claimed Philip Mauro as someone supporting his KJVO stance. Mauro explicitly stated otherwise in the context of the book Cloud lifted quotes from.

I cannot call someone who creates strife and division by employment of false positions supported by deceptive means.

 

[Paul33]

I've asked that same question of others.

They can't answer it.

My brother was talking to a KJVO person in his church the other day. This person said that when you translate the Bible into a different language like Norwegian, you should translate from the KJV of the Bible. My brother than asked this man why he didn't translate the KJV of the Bible into "modern day English" so his kids in AWANA could understand what they were reading!

He didn't have an answer!

It's ok to translate the KJV into Norwegian, but not ok to translate the KJV into modern day English!

 

[Humblesmith]

Regarding the Pinnock issue at ETS:

Norman Geisler, who was one of the founding members of the ETS, withdrew his membership when the ETS failed to condemn Pinnock. Dr. Geisler wrote a response detailing Pinnock's position and explaining why it was not in line with the founder's understanding of the ETS. In Pinnock's book "The Most Moved Mover" he says he got portions of his teachings from Alfred North Whitehead, a pantheist who qualifies as a heretic. In Dr. Geisler's article, he quotes much of the contradictions in Pinnock's views.

That the ETS did not quickly and forcefully eject Clark Pinnock is a shame, and it leaves one wondering about the discernment, direction, and future of the group.

 

[MatthewHenry]

Gents,

I offer a lone dessenting voice. I am a former pentecostal. Because David Cloud's writings on the apostate pentecostalism movement. now before anyone throws any flaming darts, hear me out for a second here. I agree some of his views on music and TV are a bit extreme. I don't agree with every little thing he says. HOWEVER, I began to read his articles on the "Strange History" of the pentecostal Church" and believe it or not. I also researched it online as well. and most of what he has written, from what I have been able to pull up. IS TRUE! (about the history of pentecostalism)

I know some of the info on the CCM music and other stuff is old. But his whole point is you cannot white wash history. and that's what the CCM, pentecostal, and SBC want to do, they want to cover up. He is against Contemporary worship, and so am I! I grew up, basically in the movement, and trust me, what says about the CCM stuff, is absolutely correct. they reject solid and sound dcotrine and just like to "go with the flow" Because I was "anal" about doctrine, I was always labeled a "Legalist", All the time. One day, after a rather nasty experience at the last pentecostal church I was in. I prayed and asked the Lord to show me the honest truth and not the user friendly version. and you know what? The Lord lead me to David's site. and I'll tell you gents, it changed mty life, it challenged me to investigate, made me think, and after 6 months of soul searching, praying, and study. I came to place where I HAD to leave that movement for good. and Now I am in a IFB Church. best move I EVER made.

David Cloud, FWIW, is a missionary in Napal. He runs a Church there, Wayoflife.org is something he does in his spare time.

Again, I say to you all. Before you critize the man, Think first. because when I first came to his site, as a pentecostal, I got angry. very angry. But something pushed me to read more and investigate the stuff and sure enough. I began to see the truth. and it turns out, Cloud was right.

As for the claim the Cloud is a chick clone, nothing could be further from the truth. Chick doesn't even sell any of Cloud's stuff. In fact, Chick is a "Double inspiration" person, cloud totally rejects the ruckmanite belief system.

just some thoughts.

-ME

"A Freind of David Cloud"

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by Humblesmith:
Regarding the Pinnock issue at ETS:

Norman Geisler, who was one of the founding members of the ETS, withdrew his membership when the ETS failed to condemn Pinnock. Dr. Geisler wrote a response detailing Pinnock's position and explaining why it was not in line with the founder's understanding of the ETS. In Pinnock's book "The Most Moved Mover" he says he got portions of his teachings from Alfred North Whitehead, a pantheist who qualifies as a heretic. In Dr. Geisler's article, he quotes much of the contradictions in Pinnock's views.

That the ETS did not quickly and forcefully eject Clark Pinnock is a shame, and it leaves one wondering about the discernment, direction, and future of the group.

If Norm Geisler resigned over this issue, then why are we cussing David Cloud for condeming it? What's the difference between Cloud and Geisler on this issue?

 

[Scott J]

Geisler doesn't condemn everyone who doesn't bow down to his superiority.

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by rsr:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />At the same time, I am not wanting to defend to the death everything that I wrote long ago, as if there is nothing in it that could not be improved upon, as if I am never mistaken. No, I am 100% certain that, were we to sift through the text of The Scripture Principle as we did with Most Moved Mover, some phrases would have to be improved on and some examples removed or modified. I am sure, were we to go through it carefully, changes would be in order. By analogy and in line with the October 3rd examination, I would listen carefully and accept correction. This is my way. My hope is that you may find it possible to judge me on what I am saying now than on what I may have said then. My testimony of 2003 represents my position. I am in agreement with the Chicago Declaration. I happily disown statements I may have made years ago which fall short of this standard. As I have talked to the committee and with Roger Nicole and Bruce Ware, I sense that we view the scriptures in substantially the same way.

— Clark Pinnock, statement to the ETS, March 2004

Emphasis added

FULL STATEMENT </font>[/QUOTE]Who knows where Clark Pinnock is? He’s all over the place. As a young college student, I thought Clark Pinnock was a bona fide scholar and Biblically sound. I was in the SBC then and Pinnock, who was professor at NOBTS, was blasting the liberal SBC college and seminary professors. Now, Pinnock has become what he has censured in others. I can still remember my chagrin when I quoted Pinnock on an issue only to find that he had changed his position. It is not that he has matured and refined his positions but it is basically that he has fish flopped all over the place on numerous issues. Who knows what he genuinely believes? Well, my opinion of him has changed too—he’s a gadfly scholar and wholly unsound Biblically. I have no confidence in him including his supposed recantation. IHMO, old Clark knows which side of his cornbread is buttered.

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by TomVols:
As an ETS member, I can tell you that's pretty much correct. Mr. Cloud misspoke. Let me doublecheck on whether or not Dr. Pinnock was excluded for membership.

Was Cloud wrong?

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by Scott J:
Geisler doesn't condemn everyone who doesn't bow down to his superiority.

It seems that you are implying that Cloud's motivation is his feeling of superiority, not his theological beliefs? Am I correct? How do you know? It is ironic that Cloud who is accused of a bitter and venomous spirit is himself the subject of prejudice and acrimonious attacks. My point was simply that Cloud and Geisler both seem to hold the same position toward the ETS and its failure to expel members holding Open Theology views.

It appears that you are rather prejudiced against Cloud. Could you please support your charge of Mr. Cloud’s “feeling of superiority?” I don’t see that at all but I do see a man taking a hard theological line—he stills believe dogma.

There's something in me that loves the underdog. When I see a bunch of folks beating up on a guy unfairly I have a compulsion to rush in and defend him regardless whether I agree with him or not. I will stipulate that hard-core Fundamentalist, of whom I am one, do tend to gang up and pound one’s opponents. And there are times when I am thoroughly embarrassed by their tactics and pigheadedness. However, I am thoroughly dismayed to see the same behavior in those who condemn it in the hardliners. And there’s a difference too! The hard-liners do it out of a sincere dogmatic conviction that they are right and truth in on their side. Now, why do those from a broader theological perspective advocating tolerance and sweetness do it? You tell me.

Considering myself to be a rather dogmatic individual, it bemuses me to no end to find that I am much broader and more tolerant than those advocating it. LOL,

I accept the hard-bitten Fundamentalists with the same calmness as I accept the less stringent brethren. To my thinking, this broadens the spectrum to give me a broader field of acceptance. So, who is the tolerant guy now?