cloudresistgod

DO "CALVINISTS CLAIM THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE THAT MAN COULD ACCEPT OR REJECT GOD'S SALVATION"?
(AS CLAIMED BY DAVID CLOUD)

Let's be honest here. David Cloud's criticism's against Calvinism are not of the deeper kind. While he does raise some good points here and there, it quickly becomes evident that to read one page is to effectively read them all. He is of that stamp of Calvinistic critic who continually attacks (for example) the doctrine of Particular Redemption (i.e. that Christ only made atonement for the sins of His elect) by quoting those universal texts and emphasising the word "ALL" and "WORLD" and "EVERY MAN" as if these terms only bore the one meaning in the Scripture. He never gets above telling us why "ALL" must mean "all without exception" rather than "all without distinction" (i.e. "all kinds of") as these same phrases do elsewhere in Scripture. This is shallow. For a supposed watch man in the tower of orthodoxy with a trumpet in his hand, Cloud soon runs out of breath.

Other times, his criticisms of Calvinism do not even rise to the standard above. This is when he tries to compete with Dave Hunt as to who can make the most absurd statement on the Calvinistic issue. Up there with Hunt's "Spurgeon equivocally denied Limited Atonement" statement (which we answer here) Cloud has blatantly told his hearers elsewhere that "Calvinists believe that faith is a work." (His self styled "red hot" sermon on "Calvinism - Who is the enemy" - reviewed, refuted and repudiated here) Below is another example. Cloud claims (highlighted in red) that Calvinists claim that it is impossible that man could accept or reject God's salvation. Excuse the bluntness here. But that is pure and absolute balderdash of the highest order. I will prove it with verifiable references below.

CLOUD'S ORIGINAL ARTICLE - WORD FOR WORD

http://wayoflife.worthyofpraise.org/fridaynews/pdf/2007/20070216.pdf

“Yea, they turned back and tempted God, and limited the Holy One of Israel” (Psalm 78:41). According to Calvinism, if man can resist God or

thwart His purposes then God is no longer a Sovereign God and man must be Sovereign. Thus they claim that it is impossible that man could accept or reject God's salvation. But the fact is that the Bible says man does resist and reject God, and this has been going on since the earliest days of his history. Adam rejected God's Word. Cain rejected it. Noah's generation rejected it. The men gathered at the Tower of Babel rejected it. When the Psalmist recounts the experience of Israel in the wilderness, he describes them as “a stubborn and rebellious generation” (Psa. 78:8) who “refused to walk in his law” (Psa. 78:10). The Psalmist then makes this amazing statement: “THEY LIMITED THE HOLY ONE OF ISRAEL” (Psa. 78:41). According to Calvinist thinking, this is not possible and if it were possible it would mean that God is not sovereign, but it is obvious that Calvinism is wrong on both counts. For God to make man in His own image with a will and an ability to make real choices and for God to allow man to exercise his will even in the matter of receiving salvation does not make God any less sovereign than had He created a robot. And it will not do to allow that man can resist God in some things but not in the matter salvation. If man can resist and reject and limit God in any way and God can still be God, then God can still be God if He offers salvation to all and some receive it and some reject it, as the Bible so plainly says. “And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely” (Rev. 22:17). [Highlight mine: Colin Maxwell]

1) CLOUD'S ALLEGATION CONTRADICTS WHAT CALVINIST COMMENTATORS HAVE WRITTEN IN THEIR COMMENTARIES:

Every Christian (including Calvinists) can quote those verses that teach that man can and does accept or reject God's salvation. So, it is not too hard to look up the standard Calvinist commentators on these verses and see what they say. Obviously, we must give but a relatively small sprinkling here of quotes, because the verses are so many and the quotations are likewise numerous.

The verse that came immediately to my mind was John 5:40 "And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life." The obvious one. So I looked up JOHN CALVIN: "And you will not come to me. He again reproaches them that it is nothing but their own malice that hinders them from becoming partakers of the life offered in the Scriptures; for when he says that they will not, he imputes the cause of their ignorance and blindness to wickedness and obstinacy. And, indeed, since he offered himself to them so graciously, they must have been willfully blind; but when they intentionally fled from the light, and even desired to extinguish the sun by the darkness of their unbelief, Christ justly reproves them with greater severity." (John Calvin on John 5:40) Can you read English? I moved then to ARTHUR PINK on the same verse. He said: "It was not lack of evidence but perversity of will that kept these Jews from coming to Christ. And it is so still. The Lord Jesus stands ready to receive all who come to him, but by nature men are unwilling, unwilling to come to them that they might have life." I then headed for CH SPURGEON. Just a word about Spurgeon. It is another one of Cloud's quirks that he should try and separate Spurgeon from other Calvinists. Phrases crop up with regular monotony like "Spurgeon was his own kind of Calvinist" and again the phrase has been employed: "Spurgeon was a Calvinist of sorts." Well, Spurgeon once declared "I am not ashamed to endorse his [John Gill's] views even now, and to subscribe to the doctrinal statements that John Calvin uttered." (MTP 48:138) So the idea that Spurgeon's Calvinism should be viewed differently from that of Calvin shouldn't wash with anyone. Well, what did the unashamed Calvin subscriber Spurgeon say on John 5:40? Listen to how he commences his sermon: "Our Lord was addressing himself to the unbelieving Jews. He told them that they had received abundant evidence of his being the sent one of God, but yet they had rejected him, and he solemnly charged this home upon their consciences." Is Cloud living on Planet Earth? Spurgeon, as quoted above, was not ashamed to endorse the views of JOHN GILL, so we headed for his comments. I quote: "...They thought they had eternal life elsewhere: and such were their ignorance of themselves and Christ; and such their prejudices against him; and such the depravity, perverseness, and stubbornness of their wills, that they had no inclination, desire, and will to come to Christ, any more than power; which is an argument against, and not for the free will of man, unless it be to that which is evil: and this perverseness of their wills to come to
Christ, when revealed in the external ministry of the word, was blameworthy in them, since this was not owing to any decree of God, but to the corruption and vitiosity of nature; which being blameworthy in them, that which follows upon it must be so too; and it was the greater aggravation of their sin, that they had the Scriptures which testified of Christ, and pointed at him as the way of life, and yet would not come to him for it:" I thought then of good BISHOP RYLE, for although a 4 point Calvinist, yet nevertheless he is sound on the doctrines of Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Efficacious Grace and the Perseverance of the Saints. What said the good old Bishop? "The real reason why men do not come to Christ, and consequently die in their sins, is their want of will to come." I looked up the sermon of the godly ROBERT MURRAY McCHEYNE on this text. His proposition reads: " Doctrine: Sinner's are lost, not by reason of anything in Christ, but by reason of something in themselves. They will not come to Christ that they might have life." (Additional Remains of McCheyne p.297) His third and last point in this sermon is entitled: "The sinfulness of not coming to Christ." I looked up MATTHEW HENRY who was a 5 point Calvinist. His comments: The only reason why sinners die is because they will not come to Christ for life and happiness; it is not because they cannot, but because they will not. They will neither accept the life offered, because spiritual and divine, nor will they agree to the terms on which it is offered, nor apply themselves to the use of the appointed means: they will not be cured, for they will not observe the methods of cure. Fourthly, The willfulness and obstinacy of sinners in rejecting the tenders of grace are a great grief to the Lord Jesus, and what he complains of." I looked then at MATTHEW POOLE: "Ye will not own, embrace and receive me as the true Messiah and Saviour of the world..." Finally, I looked up JAMISON, FAUSETT AND BROWN on this verse. They comment: “In the Scriptures ye find your charter of eternal life; go search them then, and you will find that I am the Great Burden of their testimony; yet ye will not come to Me for that life eternal which you profess to find there, and of which they tell you I am the appointed Dispenser.” There were other Calvinistic commentaries/sermons I might have consulted, but I think these 8 quotations have proved my point. See below for further comment on Cloud and the use of Calvinistic commentaries.

2) CLOUD'S ALLEGATION CONTRADICTS WHAT CALVINIST CONFESSIONS OF FAITH STATE ON THE MATTER:

I must limit myself to the Westminster Confession of Faith. The Larger Catechism indicts the non elect "for their willful neglect and contempt of the grace offered to them, being justly left in their unbelief, do never truly come to Jesus Christ." (Q. 68) Don't let those words "willful neglect and contempt" etc., be lost on you. They are teaching the very thing which Cloud foolishly denies that we believe.

At the back of many editions of the WCF, there is a section called "The Practical Use of Saving Knowledge" which gives a very useful guide to the nature of gospel preaching. This distinction is important, because this is what a Calvinistic church wants expounded from the pulpit. The fourth heading and content is as follows:

IV. For convincing a man of sin, righteousness, and judgment, by the gospel.

As for convincing a man of sin, and righteousness, and judgment, by the gospel, or covenant of grace, he must understand three things:

1. That not believing in Jesus Christ, or refusing of the covenant of grace offered in him, is a greater and more dangerous sin than all other sins against the law; because the hearers of the gospel, not believing in Christ, do reject God's mercy in Christ, the only way of freedom from sin and wrath, and will not yield to be reconciled to God. 2. Next, he must understand, that perfect remission of sin, and true righteousness, is to be had only by faith in Jesus; because God requireth no other conditions but faith; and testifies from heaven, that he is well pleased to justify sinners upon this condition. 3. He must understand, that upon righteousness received by faith, judgment shall follow, on the one hand, to the destroying of the works of the devil in the believer, and to the perfecting of the work of sanctification in him, with power: and that, upon refusing to take righteousness by faith in Jesus Christ, judgment shall follow, on the other hand, to the condemnation of the misbeliever, and destroying of him with Satan and his servants for ever.

In all honesty, whether you are in sympathy with Calvinism or against it, are these the words of those who "claim that it is impossible that man could accept or reject God's salvation"?

3) IF CLOUD'S ALLEGATION IS TRUE, THEN IT CONTRADICTS THE CALVINIST DOCTRINE OF TOTAL DEPRAVITY AND THE ALL EMBRACING DOCTRINE OF THE JUSTICE OF HELL:

How can Calvinists hold to TOTAL DEPRAVITY if they do not believe that men can reject the gospel? The term "depravity" means much more than "inability" - it denotes (as seen in the comments above on John 5:40) "sinful inability" and that is because when the gospel is preached, many people willingly reject it. That's why Calvinists believe (in line with every other Evangelical Christian) that there is a burning hell for Christ rejecters - those who reject the offered light because they consciously love the sinful darkness (John 3:19) It is worth noting there than the Calvinistic doctrine of UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION does not mean that God makes men sinners and then damns them to perdition, but that He treats them as sinners already and leaves them to their chosen path of sin. This makes the sinner culpable and is the basis of the justice of hell. Cloud (like many others) has demonstrated elsewhere his inability to grasp this basic teaching, and this leaves him open to all kinds of weird and wonderful opportunities to refute a Calvinism that basically doesn't exist.

4) IF CLOUD'S ALLEGATION IS TRUE, THEN IT MUST LEAD EITHER TO NO SALVATION FOR ANYONE OR A UNIVERSALIST SALVATION FOR ALL - NEITHER OF WHICH IS A CALVINISTIC TEACHING:

Calvinists do not believe that no man can "accept Christ" (as Cloud puts it) but that no man can accept (or receive) Christ without the agency of the Holy Spirit. In fact, this again is a common Christian belief, taught by both schools. Calvinists do believe that men can reject Christ without divine help and will chronically so, unless grace intervenes and saves them. But as Cloud's allegation stands, either none will "accept Christ" and so we will have an empty heaven or every last man without exception will do so and we will have an empty hell. The idea is unscriptural and therefore illogical, not because it is a Calvinist belief, but because Cloud is determined to father it on us and then indict us for it. The charge is false and unwarranted. He does not back up his allegations with any proof whatsoever. There are no quotes from any Calvinist commentators ( I give you eight) nor from any Calvinistic Confessions of Faith (I supply you two from the WCF) He sticks this allegation as an end piece on what he calls a "news service" even although, strictly speaking, this article conveys nothing of any recent events. It is just a page filler, complete with a large portrait of Calvin, but still an unwarranted allegation, void of any proof because void of any truth. If there is any "news" in this particular article, it is "news" to any Calvinist or Calvinist enquirer that these things are so.

5) CLOUD'S ALLEGATION CONTRADICTS THE CALVINIST'S OWN EXPERIENCE:

Why would Calvinists believe this absurdity which Cloud is determined to father upon us when it denies the following:

[i] The many years some of us spent rejecting the gospel ourselves. We can all testify to sitting in gospel meetings, reading gospel tracts and booklets and listening to individual Christians witnessing to us and (one way or another) we said, "No today, thank you."

[ii] Thankfully, for many of us, there came a day, when by the sovereign grace of God, we "accepted God's salvation." I give my own testimony here. If you logically follow Cloud's allegation through, then no Calvinist can truly profess salvation, since we do not believe that accepting Christ is possible. Ignoring the weakened form of expression, how else can men profess salvation, except they accept (or receive) the Saviour? As I indicate above, Cloud can be painfully shallow at times and illogical in what he churns forth on this subject of Calvinism.

[iii] It contradicts our experience as Calvinistic evangelists and soul winners. (We do exist) An hour in the streets in any modern city in the West will show you that men reject Christ and the gospel every day. The response ranges from outright opposition and sneer, through to a polite though sometimes patronising smile, but it is gospel rejection nevertheless. We see it in our congregations, where people become gospel hardened through hearing and rejecting the gospel every single week. Why would we believe something that contradicts what our very eyes and ears show us to be true?

6) CLOUD'S ALLEGATION CONTRADICTS CALVINISTIC HYMNS AND CALVINISTIC HYMNBOOKS:

Often what we sing regularly is remembered when the preacher's words have been forgotten. Such is the power of music and song. Calvinistic hymn writers include men like Issac Watts, John Newton, Robert Murray McCheyne and Horatio Bonar etc., who wrote of their own salvation experiences, including both their one time rejection of Christ and then their reception of Him. Calvinistic hymnbooks, like Spurgeon's "Our Own Hymnbook" include hymns from many quarters, including those of non Calvinists, especially Charles Wesley. In Spurgeon's hymnbook, there is a pretty exhaustive index at the front and under the heading "Gospel" there appears the subtitles "Expostulations" (where the singer is expostulated with against gospel rejection, including that of the Calvinist Thomas Scott : "Hasten sinner to be wise, Stay not for tomorrow's sun, Longer wisdom you despise, Harder is she to be won") and then "Invitations" where the sinner is invited to receive Christ with hymns like that of the ultra Calvinist Joseph Hart who wrote: "Come ye sinners, poor and wretched, weak and wounded, sick and sore." Why would Calvinists write hymns about rejecting or receiving Christ and include the hymns of others on these very same subjects, if they do not believe (as alleged) that it is possible to do these things. It just doesn't add up, yet Cloud foolishly peddles these things as fact.

7) CLOUD'S ALLEGATION CONTRADICTS WHAT HE SAYS ELSEWHERE ABOUT CALVINISTS:

Let's return to the Calvinist commentaries again. Would you recommend any Bible commentator who denied what is really a fundamental doctrine i.e. that sinful men can reject the gospel? The allegation above is not merely inferred in what Cloud wrote. His language is short and terse and can mean nothing else. I repeat his words: "Thus they [Calvinists] claim that it is impossible that man could accept or reject God's salvation." The theme of man's sinfulness (as Cloud above points out) runs throughout the whole Scriptures, from Cain through to the Tower of Babel etc., Likewise the idea of God's justice, whereby sinners are punished for their sins (and nothing else). It is not restricted to a few isolated passages. If we are wrong here, we are basically wrong everywhere. If these things are so, I certainly would not put any commentary on to a page entitled "Recommended Commentary Sets." Yet this is what Cloud has done with several of the commentaries referred to above. Indeed, he not only lists them, but he tells us, "While I am familiar with a wide range of the commentary sets available, the following are the ones that I have found most helpful for my Christian life and ministry and are the ones I recommend to my preacher friends." Read it for yourself and pick out Matthew Henry, Charles Spurgeon, Matthew Poole, John Gill and Jamieson, Fausett and Brown (all quoted by me above) Fair enough, he voices his reserve on some issues, but again the question just won't away. How can you recommend anyone to your preacher friends and say that they have been most helpful for your Christian life and ministry when (according to you) they claim that it is impossible that man could accept or reject God's salvation? The allegation strikes very deep. If true, it holes the ship and she will trace without trace.

In an earlier page on Calvinism (since edited down as Cloud hardened his stance on Calvinism, but its contents reserved and answered here) Cloud spoke of evangelistic Calvinists. He mentioned at relative length of the evangelistic ministries of Peter Masters, Ian Paisley and others. But pray tell me, how can you have an evangelistic ministry at all when you believe (if Cloud is telling the truth) that it is impossible for men to "accept or reject Christ"? Why go to all the hard work and often opposition and expense to maintain a gospel ministry, when you are seeking the impossible? It just doesn't add up, does it?

Did the Calvinistic translators of Cloud's beloved Authorised Version (KJV) believe that it was impossible for men to accept or reject Christ? If so, were they fit men to translate the holy and pure word of God? Do they warrant the term "the Authorized committee of mental and spiritual giants" which another referred to them as, but which Cloud, not only reproduces but draws attention to here? True, elsewhere Cloud reduces these spiritual giants to mere editors of Tyndale's translation, but the problem still doesn't go away. Are men who deny this basic gospel idea that the soul can accept or reject Christ fit editors of a translation the word of God? Anyway, Tyndale himself (amazingly, if Cloud's allegation above is true) is described by Cloud as being as "a separatist Bible believing Christian") held to Calvinist doctrine, so Cloud cannot escape the implications which he himself manufactures in another setting. Part of his rejection of modern versions lies in his rejection of the fatally deficient gospel views of their translaters etc., Note the minute and exact scrutiny Cloud applies in this article to the translator of the Good News Bible, or (better still) all the serious doctrinal deficiencies of various translators and editors etc., here, leading to the sane advice: "Friends, beware of of the modern versions. They are largely the product of men who deny the faith once delivered to the saints." The same principle, however, must apply right across the board., no matter if we are talking about the Authorised Version or any other version. If Cloud is right, the Authorised Version is largely the product of men who claim that it is impossible for man to accept or reject the gospel and therefore deny the faith once delivered unto the saints.

These things being so, then much of the mud which Cloud throws towards the Calvinists splashes himself. If he kept to the main (and true) differences between the two schools, then his recommendations would be warranted. This is the principle that many other Christians, of both schools, operate on. It works very well for us. We have the ability to state the differences accurately and we see that fundamentally, we are on the same pitch. Cloud robs himself of such a position by this latest outburst. He effectively Calvinists off the field, because (according to him) we deny what is basically a fundamental of the faith along with the various implications flowing from it. But he still wants to recommend these great Calvinistic commentaries etc., to his preacher friends. If you read other part of Cloud's site, you will know how he castigates this man and that man for alluding to the writings of those whose basic orthodoxy is in serious doubt. "Beware of..." is a common heading. Does Cloud himself not fall into the same condemnation? Yes...but only if what he says is true.

It contradicts what Cloud wrote here about his many Calvinist friends: "DOCTRINE: Baptist; non-Calvinistic (not following TULIP theology); while we have many Calvinist friends and we praise the Lord for their faith in God, we cannot in good conscience recommend their churches because we do not want to see people trained in a theology which we believe is unscriptural)." How on earth can Cloud's many Calvinist friends need faith when they deem it impossible for men to reject the gospel and how can they profess to have it when, again if Cloud is telling the truth, they do not believe it is possible for men to accept the gospel? It is one thing to have defective views about the nature of faith. Great and orthodox men have wrangled over the details for centuries and will doubtless continue to do so. But how can anyone have faith at all, if they believed what Cloud brazenly attributes to Calvins with believing, and how can Cloud thank God for such a faith? Of course, it is absurd, but the absurdity belongs to Cloud's allegation that contradicts all that Calvinists have ever believed, said, written, sung about, experienced and witnessed for themselves.

MY EMAIL TO DAVID CLOUD 16th February, 2007

DAVID CLOUD'S REPLY 17th February, 2007

I'm not interested in your challenges, Colin. You are wasting your time trying to dish out your Calvinism here.

Way of Life Literature
P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061
866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org
http://www.wayoflife.org

HOW CHARLES SPURGEON TACKLED THE DAVID CLOUD'S OF HIS DAY:

"The most infamous allegations have been brought against us, and sometimes, I must fear, by men who knew them to be utterly untrue: and, to this day, there are many of our opponents, who, when they run short of matter, invent and make for themselves a man of straw, call that John Calvin and then shoot all their arrows at it. We are not come here to defend your man of straw — shoot at it or burn it as you will, and, if it suit your convenience, still oppose doctrines which were never taught, and rail at fictions which, save in your own brain, were never in existence." (7:550)

HOW CLOUD CONCLUDED HIS "NEWS" PAGE
(Emphasis mine)

CONCLUSION: Friends in Christ, do not be discouraged by any of this. It is God's will that we know the times (1 Ch. 12:32; Mat. 16:3) and that we be as wise as serpents and harmless as doves. These things remind us that the hour is very late, and we need to be ready for the coming of the Lord. Are you sure that you are born again? Are you living for Christ day by day? “And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light. Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying. But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof” (Rom. 13:11-14). This material is sent only to those who personally subscribe to the Fundamental Baptist Information Service list. To SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE or CHANGE ADDRESSES go to http://www.wayoflife.org/fbis/subscribe.html. Way of Life Literature, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061.866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org. David Cloud is the director of Way of Life Literature and author of the Friday Church News Notes.