1) Mr Cloud repeats his oft repeated charge that to argue against Calvinism is to be subject to cries of "You don't understand Calvinism" or "You are misrepresenting Calvinism" This at once has Calvinists donning the cloak of victim hood and evokes that sense of pity which reduces the  Calvinist to the role of a sad individual. We are all supposed to accept that since Mr Cloud claims he has has read, nay studied with all diligence, Calvinistic books including Calvin's Institutes, then we are to think that he cannot possibly be mistaken or that he has no other agenda than relating things as they stand.

Two could play at that game. I could seek to refute Mr Cloud's Dispensationalism by charging him with all the errors of EW Bullinger's Hyper Dispensationalism. Go at it hammer and tongs.  Blitzkreig the Dispensationalists, with articles that have few references (doesn't matter if they are in context or not) and basically are a mich mash of what I think Dispensationalism is about.  Give one or two liner replies to some of the emails that come in and prepare new articles, disregarding the protests with words like these:

"I know by experience that a man who is staunchly committed to [Dispensationalism] will not accept my interpretation of the following passages. I have dialogued with many committed [Dispensationalists] and I have learned that they have an answer for everything and they always, always, always complain that the [non-Dispensationalist] does not understand Dispensationalism. One can study [Dispensationalism] deeply, can even read [Schofield's Bible] and can quote directly from their own writings, but if such a one remains a [non-Dispensationalist] he will always be charged with misunderstanding and misrepresenting [Dispensationalism]"

Or I could lump him in GA Riplinger and Peter Ruckman in his defence of the Authorised Version, rehash old articles under new titles, talk about my dialogues with many KJV Only people and lament that they have an answer for everything and that they ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS complain etc., And the louder the howls of protests, the more I will repeat it, convincing myself that it is an just an old trick of an exposed adversary to get the heat off. Does Mr Cloud believe his own propaganda? I certainly think so, because the following thoughts never seem to cross his mind, or if they do, they are quickly dismissed when it is time to have a go at Calvinism again i.e. "Maybe I do not have a proper understanding of Calvinism? They seem to denying the most important things I am writing? And so many of them too! Maybe I should re investigate this, and stop tarring them all with the one brush, when other critics refuse to do so." Is this beyond Mr Cloud? At the moment, it seems to be, but he can always change and make articles like these redundant. But until he quits believing in what is for all intents and purposes, his own infallibility, then we must continue to refute his baseless allegations concerning us. The reasonable reader will understand that Calvinists are better situated to define what they believe and why than someone like Mr Cloud whose inability to do so is fast becoming a joke.

2) Mr Cloud quotes several "proof texts" from Calvinism, but  dismisses them on the basis that they don't use the terminology he thinks they should if they can be used. For example, he seeks to refute the Calvinistic proof text in Isaiah 14:27 where we read "For the LORD of hosts hath purposed, and who shall disannul it? and his hand is stretched out, and who shall turn it back?” Mr Cloud comments "The context of this verse is God’s determination to judge the nations. “This is the purpose that is purposed upon the whole earth: and this is the hand that is stretched out upon all the nations” (verse 26). Indeed, when God purposes something His will cannot be thwarted. But this verse says nothing about Sovereign Election or Sovereign Reprobation or Irresistible Grace or any of the points of TULIP theology." But this is really a non argument. Who ever said that they did? Even Mr Cloud's own heading over this part is "Verses that used to support the Calvinist definition of God's sovereignty" which is this: That whatever God pleases, he does (or as Mr Cloud rightly says: "Indeed when God purposes something, His will cannot be thrawted.") When Daniel 4:35 is brought up, Mr Cloud informs us that "The verse says nothing about whether or not man can accept or reject the gospel, about whether God’s grace is resistible. This verse is stating simply that God is God and He rules ultimately over the affairs of men. The verse says nothing about whether or not man can accept or reject the gospel, about whether God’s grace is resistible. It says nothing about whether God sovereignly chooses some men to election and some to reprobation."

Let us play Mr Cloud at his own game here. One of his own proof texts for his dispensational views is in 1 Corinthians 10:32 where he assures us that it "plainly states that there are three categories of men in the world today: “Give none offence, neither to the JEWS, nor to the GENTILES, nor to the CHURCH of God.” Obviously, then, Israel is not the same as the church."  Let me do "a David Cloud" on it. "This verse merely mentions three types of  people whom we are not to offend. But the text says nothing about whether there are seven dispensations or a few more or a few less. It says nothing about the age of innocence or conscience or the dispensation between the rapture and the great white throne or anything about man always failing and God bringing up a new way etc." Ludicrous, I know, but that's the exact same method Mr Cloud uses when he opposes Calvinism. Or Psalm 12:6 which Mr Cloud uses to defend his position of using only the KJV. If I took Mr Cloud's way of arguing otherwise, I would say, "...but this text says nothing about the Holy Ghost inspiring the writings, or that He has only preserved the Authorised Version" It almost defies belief that such a argument can be used in what purports to be a serious objection to Calvinism.

3) Mr Cloud seems to think that Calvinists do not believe that men can reject the will of God. It crops up on several occasions. I quote one, "We agree fully that the Bible teaches that man is totally depraved in the sense that the sinner is corrupt and unrighteous and that there is no good in him that is acceptable before God and that it is impossible for him to earn salvation through his own works, BUT CALVINISM GOES BEYOND THIS AND ADDS ITS OWN UNIQUE TWIST THAT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY SCRIPTURE, THAT THE SINNER IS UNABLE EVEN TO BELIEVE AND THAT HIS WILL IS SO MUCH IN BONDAGE TO SIN THAT HE CANNOT ACCEPT OR REJECT THE GOSPEL." (Emphasis his) As we note beneath, Mr Cloud doesn't always supply quotes for his allegations and he certainly doesn't here. Who ever heard such a thing as this? Capital letters too for emphasis that Calvinism does not believe the sinner capable of rejecting the gospel? This is sheer nonsense and it is easily proved. Mr Cloud does at times quote certain Calvinists e.g. Calvin himself and Arthur Pink and Matthew Henry (the latter positively, without informing you, the reader, that Henry was a Calvinist.) However, it does provide us with the opportunity to quote him and show that Mr Cloud is away off beam here.

[i] What says Mr Calvin about the sinner being in bondage and unable to reject the gospel? I quote his comments from 2 Thessalonians 2:9 "Lest the wicked should complain that they perish innocently, and that they have been appointed to death rather from cruelty on the part of God, than from any fault on their part, Paul shews on what good grounds it is that so severe vengeance from God is to come upon them -- because they have not received in the temper of mind with which they ought the truth which was presented to them, nay more, of their own accord refused salvation." (Emphasis mine) Mr Cloud says that Calvinists do not believe that sinners can reject the gospel because they are so much in bondage in sin. Mr Calvin says that of their own accord, they refuse salvation. Mr Cloud offers no proof of his rash statements. I link you to John Calvin's Commentaries on the Internet so that you can check it for yourself. I could multiply examples if I had the time and desire, but only one quote is needed to show just how fertile Mr Cloud's imagination can become.

[ii] What says Mr Pink? Does he believe that sin has so bound the sinner that he cannot reject the gospel? Not in his comments on John 3:18 where we read: "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God" (John 3:18). For the believer there is "no condemnation" (Rom. 8:1), because Christ was condemned in his stead—the "chastisement of our peace" was upon Him. But the unbeliever is "condemned already." By nature he is a "child of wrath" (Eph. 2:3), not corruption merely. He enters this world with the curse of a sin-hating God upon him. If he hears the Gospel and receives not Christ he incurs a new and increased condemnation through his unbelief. How emphatically this proves that the sinner is responsible for his unbelief!" (Emphasis mine) This is sheer, undiluted nonsense on the part of Mr Cloud. He is making the most outrageous of statements, void of any proof because none is available, and passes it on as a valid criticism of Calvinism.

[iii] What says the Calvinist, Matthew Henry, whom Mr Cloud quotes favourably when it  suits him? Commenting on John 3:19 Mr Henry assures us that sinners do have the power to reject Christ. I quote: "Read also the doom of those that would not so much as know him, Joh_3:19. Many inquisitive people had knowledge of Christ and his doctrine and miracles, but they were prejudiced against him, and would not believe in him, while the generality were sottishly careless and stupid, and would not know him." (Emphasis mine)

Again in all these cases, we could multiply quotes not only from these men Mr Cloud has access to, but many others. Of course, Calvinists believe that men have power to reject the gospel. The Bible teaches it. Our own experience reminds us of many times when we turned away our ears and we see it oh so painfully when we evangelise the lost. Nonsense, Mr Cloud, you're talking absolute nonsense.

4) Mr Cloud does not follow up his belief that the overall plan of God will see fruition. Like many of his school, Mr Cloud makes some wonderful statements, but he fails to follow them through to their Scriptural and logical conclusion. Why not? Because his would lead him (if you excuse the label) into Calvinism. So he lets them hang there, relatively unexplained and lambasts those of us who go the whole way.  He makes statements like these:

"Indeed, when God purposes something His will cannot be thwarted."
"...God's eternal program rolls right on regardless of what individual men do in these or any other matters."
"The fact that God overrules man's decisions and has the final say in all matters is not contrary to the doctrine that man has a will whereby he can accept or reject God's dealings with him." [My note: seen above, no Calvinist has said otherwise - the absence of any quote to the contrary is also noted again.]
"The fact that God's counsel overrules man's will us not a defense of Calvinism. Those that the Calvinist calls (usually falsely) 'Arminians' believe this as well."
"These Proverbs teach the simple and important doctrine that though man has a will that he exercises within the sphere of freedom that God assigns to him, it is God who ultimately determines whether man is allowed to act out his will or not."

To all these things, the Calvinist says "Amen" but the difference is this...we follow them through and we apply them to everything that happens. We apply them to the doctrine of salvation. We declare that that which happens was ordained to happen. Whether we go down the road that God ordained something to happen or allowed it to happen is only one of degree. In the end, it matters little because what God does, He had always planned to do. He does not have to wait until more information comes along. He is not hindered by anything in His universe, including the will of man.  A man can will one thing, but if God has willed another, it is the will of man that gives way. His eternal programme rolls on regardless in these or any other matters. True, true, true Mr Cloud. Calvinists just get down to the nitty gritty of what this means. We don't leave it in the abstract or say it in one statement only to deny it in another.

Calvinists apply these principles to salvation, believing that all who are ultimately saved were ordained to salvation and that those who are ultimately lost were not ordained to salvation, but ordained  to wrath for their sins (Please notice this strict qualifier  - ordained to wrath FOR THEIR SINS)  Those of Mr Cloud's school do not run with this idea. God can be sovereign everywhere else, except in the issue that matters most i.e. salvation. If I understand them right, God has not ordained any in particular to salvation. He has left it ultimately to the sinner to decide his own destiny. The sinner, not God is in the driving seat. The sinner, not God, has the last say and God to the sinner's will must bow. In practical terms, we should actually be praying to sinners that they will be saved, because they have the power. "God has done that he can do..now it is up to the sinner." Let me reference these things, because I am not in the business of throwing empty, baseless, and uncheckable statements about. You will find such sentiments here and here and here and here etc.

5) Mr Cloud (as many from his school seem to do) seems to charge Calvinists with not preaching the need of faith. Calvinists place the new birth either before or along side the saving faith of the sinner. We do not believe the faith is the cause of the new birth or regeneration. We do believe though that faith is necessary for salvation. Unconditional election does not mean unconditional salvation. Without faith a man perishes (John 3:18/36) Calvinists preach a conditional salvation - we freely use the "if" when confronting the sinner with his need of Christ as Lord and Saviour.  If Mr Cloud left his criticism to Calvinism on the order of salvation, then many of these articles might not have written. This is one of the differences which exist between Evangelical believers. But Mr Cloud cannot state the matter correctly at all. He makes statements which strongly imply that Calvinists do not believe that faith is essential in salvation. For example, Mr Cloud quotes Ephesians 2:8-9 and explains it thus: "Here we find that faith is the means whereby we are saved; it is the “hand that reaches out to accept God’s Gift.” and again: "It is obvious from the previous verses that faith precedes and results in salvation." Absolutely, Mr Cloud. 100% true. In fact, I'll quote you Calvin on this verse just to show you that we Calvinists are behind you every inch of the way on this one.

"8. For by grace are ye saved. This is an inference from the former statements. Having treated of election and of effectual calling, he arrives at
this general conclusion, that they had obtained salvation by faith alone. First, he asserts, that the salvation of the Ephesians was entirely the work, the gracious work of God. But then they had obtained this grace by faith. On one side, we must look at God; and, on the other, at man. God declares, that he owes us nothing; so that salvation is not a reward or recompense, but unmixed grace. The next question is, in what way do men receive that salvation which is offered to them by the hand of God? The answer is, by faith; and hence he concludes that nothing connected with it is our own. If, on the part of God, it is grace alone, and if we bring nothing but faith, which strips us of all commendation, it follows that salvation does not come from us." (Emphasis mine)

A whole chapter in the Westminster Confession of Faith, which Mr Cloud also manages to quote along the way, is actually entitled "Saving Faith" Surely Mr Cloud must know this? If so, why then, does Mr Cloud raises this matter? If he does not know that Calvinists believe that salvation is by grace through faith (a common belief of all Bible Christians of whatever school) then his ignorance is great indeed, and that hardly inspires confidence in his criticisms of Calvinism.  If Calvinists did not believe it, then they would not be Christians at all. Many of those great names in Christian history, some of whom when Mr Cloud has calmed down and returned to sanity, draws upon in other situations e.g. Spurgeon and the AV translators  etc., would be today in hell. Where else would they be, if they denied that faith was necessary for salvation? You cannot act upon what you deny to be the case. Or has Mr Cloud other motives in saying these things? Only he can say, but it doesn't add up or make sense.

6) A constant theme in Mr Cloud's attacks upon Calvinism is what he calls "sovereign reprobation." Let me define what Calvinists mean by sovereign election. It will be understood best if I set it forth in a series of propositions.

[i] In eternity past, all men, still uncreated, are viewed by God as sinners and therefore viewed as guilty and deserving of hell.
[ii] God in His sovereignty chooses to save some, arguably most, of these guilty ones solely on the basis of his grace, without anything foreseen on their part.
[iii] These ones whom God chooses to salvation will be saved in time through the means of gospel preaching when they come to faith in Christ.
[iv] The rest, God (for reasons best known to Himself, and to His glory) chooses to leave in their sins and they will perish in hell for their sins. Let me repeat that last part, so that it will sink in to every reader. They will perish, judicially, in hell for their sins.  You don't get that impression when you read Mr Cloud's criticisms of Calvinism, and yet it absolutely vital to the whole.
[v] The difference which God makes between two people (say, Jacob and Esau, to take the Romans 9 example) is sovereign. He did not chose Jacob over Esau because Jacob was more righteous or leave Esau and take Jacob because Esau was more sinful than Jacob. At the risk of labouring the point, let me emphasise this again. Both twins deserved to perish. Esau perishes in hell because of his sins. Damnation in the bible is always judicial. It is always deserved. But that one sinner should be chosen to be saved out of his sins and another should be left to perish in his, is not rooted in the foreseen decision of the one to repent. It is rooted entirely in the sovereign grace of God.  If this is what is meant by "Sovereign reprobation" then I will run with it. If Mr Cloud is charging Calvinists with teaching that men go to hell for reasons other than their own loved and chosen sins, then he is greatly mistaken and lays at our door a charge that cannot stick.

7) For some strange reason, Mr Cloud makes the following statement: "The Calvinist claims that faith is a work." Again, there are no supporting quotes just to prove that he is not sharing with us the latest installments of his fertile imagination. He is evidently targeting the "David Cloud says it, I believe it and that settles it!" brigade.  One reason why he does not oblige us with proof is that none is there. With all his vast expensive library, 24/7 Internet access and tete a tete communications with Calvinists, he simply can't produce the damning evidence. Let him thumb over Pink's Sovereignty of God again or peruse his copy of the Westminster Confession of Faith afresh. He's waffling and we all know it. Calvinists do NOT believe that faith is a work. As Calvin writes in His Institutes: (Emphasis mine)

"Therefore, we must come to this remedy: that believers should be convinced that their only ground of hope for the inheritance of a Heavenly Kingdom lies in the fact that, being engrafted in the body of Christ, they are freely accounted righteous. For, as regards justification, faith is something merely passive, bringing nothing of ours to the recovering of God’s favor but receiving from Christ that which we lack." (3:8:5)

Again, Calvin writes:  (Emphasis mine)

"Faith and law are contrary, the one to another; contrary as to the work of justifying." (Comments on Habakkuk 2:4)

Let me enlighten you further about what Calvinists believe about faith. We believe that there is a faith called "the faith of God's elect" (Titus 1:1) This faith is not to be compared with the faith of devils (James 2:19) It is not the faith best represented by the seed which fell on the thorny ground or among the thorns. (Matthew 13:20-22) It is the faith which saves and justifies the soul (Acts 16:30-31/Romans 5:1) and which brings it home to Heaven at last (1 Peter 1:5/Hebrews 10:38-39) Only the elect have this faith. A man who is non elect (no matter how he came to be elected) does not have this faith. He dies an unbeliever and justly perishes in hell (John 3:18-19) Such faith is given only to the elect. It is a gift from God. Men believe through grace (Acts 18:27) Unto the elect, it is given...to believe on Christ's name (Philippians 1:27)  It is set forth in Ephesians 2:8-9 (as Mr Cloud rightly quotes) as an opposite of works, as indeed in Romans 3:28 etc.,

To be fair to Mr Cloud, I think I have an idea where he is coming from. Calvinists and non Calvinists disagree over the doctrine of election. Calvinists believe that election is unconditional i.e. it is rooted purely and solely in the free grace of God without any contribution of whatever kind from the elect sinner. Non Calvinists disagree. They say that election has a cause other than the free grace of God, or (to be more accurate) a cause alongside the free grace of God i.e. the foreseen faith of the sinner.  God's grace, along side and ultimately dependent on my faith = my election. This being the case, Calvinists charge Non Calvinists with making faith into a work. This is a different thing from Calvinists believing that faith is a work. We are not expounding our own position when we make this charge, but exposing the logical outcome of our opponent's position. It might even be that the Non Calvinist will deny this, because it doesn't sit right. But the Calvinists have a point that is not easily dismissed. If my election unto salvation is totally and absolutely dependent on MY FAITH and if MY FAITH saves me, not in the sense of being a channel of salvation (as Calvinists believe) but a very important cause, then we have contributed something to our salvation. And that makes a faith a work. So while we can see where Mr Cloud is coming from, we can also see where he is greatly mistaken. I trust that he will see it himself and take back his silly allegation before it gets repeated over and over again (as these things tend to be) Remember, it is not in any one's interest to have false charges circulated.

There are a number of times when Mr Cloud fails to give any references for what he is saying. At best, this is shoddy workmanship. Bringing the most outrageous allegations without a shred of evidence wouldn't stand up in a court of law and the people of God deserve better than this. If you are one of these many believers being "newly subjected to Calvinism" (which Mr Cloud refers to in the opening paragraphs of this latest attack) please see that this debate is a serious debate. There are many Christians, from both sides of the debate, who seek to honestly present the facts so that you can peruse them for yourself.  There are better sites than Mr Cloud's if you want to investigate the matter further from a Non Calvinist point of view. Obviously, as a Calvinist, I don't agree with their conclusions, but you don't have to wade through the nonsense you wade through in Mr Cloud's site.

9) In the midst of so much untrue allegation etc., Mr Cloud does raise some good points. He raises issues that need to be answered on some points of doctrine. These include:

[i] What it means to be elect according to the foreknowledge of God in 1 Peter 1:2. What part Acts 2:23 plays in determining the meaning of foreknowledge. I answer him here.

[ii] Romans 9 and its implications for Esau and Pharaoh. Particularly his statements:
A/ The example of Esau and Jacob does not refer to election pertaining to personal salvation but to election pertaining to nations in God’s overall programme. 
B/ As for Pharaoh, it is important to understand that he first hardened his own heart.
C/  Rom. 9:22-23 does not say that God sovereignly fits some sinners to destruction and some to glory.
D/ Rom. 9:23-24 does not mean that God calls only a certain pre-chosen elect group to salvation.
E/ God’s salvation even of the Jews was not a matter of “sovereign” election but was based on an individual’s faith in His Word.
F/ Romans 10 leaves no doubt about this; the promise of salvation proves that it is not God’s arbitrary or “sovereign” choice (Rom. 10:8-13). 
G/ God’s sovereignty does not mean that His will is always accomplished in man. 
H/ God’s blinding of Israel was not a matter of sovereign election but it was because they first hardened their own hearts.
[Later note: I answer these 8 points here]

Some of these things have already been answered in this page i.e. that sinners are fitted to destruction purely on the basis of God's sovereignty i.e. without any reference to their sins. However, since I am but analysing Mr Cloud's article, rather than purporting to answer it line by line as I have done in previous occasions, I will not take up the matter...at least, not now.

It may interest readers to know that I do agree with Mr Cloud on his statement that sinners fit themselves to destruction. Many Calvinists take this line including Spurgeon who said: "Are there not some of you here present, who are being fitted for destruction? God is not fitting you, you are fitting yourselves, by daily developing and indulging the depravity of your heart. ...Are you not making yourselves ready to be as stubble fully dried, cast into the oven of his wrath? This is not to be laid to the charge of God, but at your own door the guilt must he. If you perish any one of you, on your own head shall be your blood. The eternal God is not guilty of the murder of men’s souls, they that die and sink in hell are suicides; they have rejected mercy, they have despised the Savior, they have chosen sin and hated holiness." (Sermon on Romans 9:23)

The comments of John Gill on Romans (9:22) put the blame on Satan and the sinner himself while Matthew Henry says that such sinners "by their own obstinacy and willfulness in sin, fit themselves for destruction." William Hendriksen likewise attributes it to the sinner in co-operation with Satan. If Mr Cloud gives you the impression that all Calvinists believe otherwise, then please be assured that this is not so. I could multiply quotes to the contrary.

Furthermore,  those Calvinists, like Pink and Calvin, who attribute the fitting to destruction to an act of God, still blame the sinner for his destruction, attributing his eternity in hell to be the reward of his wilful sinning against God.  For instance, Pink says: "Now if by "destruction" we understand punishment, it is perfectly true that the non-elect do "fit themselves", for every one will be judged "according to his works"; and further, we freely grant that subjectively the non-elect do fit themselves for destruction. But the point to be decided is, Is this what the apostle is here referring to? And, without hesitation, we reply it is not." So his disagreement is not with the principle that sinners are not destroyed without cause, but that this is what Paul is getting at here in this particular verse. While it is to be regretted that Calvin did not make himself clearer on this subject at this particular point where he quotes Romans 9:22, it may be argued in his favour that elsewhere in the Institutes he does attribute the cause of damnation to man's own self. I quote: "Accordingly we should contemplate the evident cause of  condemnation in the corrupt nature of humanity - which is closer to us - rather than seek a hidden and utterly incomprehensible cause in God's predestination." (3:23:8) 

[iii] Mr Cloud's inability to discern between God's preceptive will and his decretive will - which elsewhere he brands as mumbo-jumbo.

[iv] Mr Cloud feels it is sufficient to merely state those "universal" verses which include words like "all" or "everyman" or "the world" and have them always mean "all without exception." We might take him a bit more serious if he could tell us why they need not mean "all without distinction." I have taken time to answer these in those pages where Mr Cloud brings them up.


In closing, it may be that I have overlook some other matters that I ought to have addressed. Such omission on my part should not be taken to mean that Mr Cloud is right is correct when he brings them to the fore. This page should be read along with the several other pages, referred to above, where we deal more particularly with his errors.

THE END