hebrewscloud

OK...Mr Cloud is getting itchy again about Calvinism :-) What has he to say? Does it add up? Is it Scriptural? We'll see. You can access the original article on: http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/hebrews-refutescalvinism.html

[Update: Unable to locate this page. Cloud totally rearranged his site some time after this article was originally written and it seems that this particular page got dropped. I am letting my response remain here for two reasons. [1] Cloud continues to mercilessly attack Calvinism on other pages and this response exposes the shallowness of his attacks. [2] Cloud might in a future date put the old page back online again.]

The book of Hebrews refutes the Calvinist or TULIP doctrines of unconditional and “sovereign” election and irresistible grace, that God sovereignly and arbitrarily chooses who will be saved and irresistibly and absolutely draws them so that on one hand it is impossible for the non-elect to be saved and on the other hand it is impossible for the elect not to be saved.

First, we must fill in the holes which Mr Cloud's opening statement creates:
(i) Calvinists believe that when God made His sovereign choice in election, that the mass of humanity (still uncreated, but existing in the decree of God) were viewed as sinners. I can't recall where Mr Cloud, in any of his criticisms of Calvinism, manages to state this, and yet it is basic to the whole. All deserved to be left to perish in their sins. Indeed when Mr Cloud tackled the appropriate chapter of the Westminster Confession of Faith, for some reason or other, he omitted the entire 7th paragraph which distinctly states that men who are passed by and ordained to dishonour and wrath are so ordained "for their sin" This is a serious omission on Mr Cloud's part. If this was a legal case, it could overthrow any decision by a jury and cause a retrial. While election is based on the sovereign choice of God, the condemnation that flows from reprobation (which simply means that some undeserving sinners were passed by) is always judicial.

(ii) What holds back the non elect from coming to Christ is not some great Hand from Heaven, but again....their own sin. God simply declines to grant them saving faith or repentance (which He is under no obligation to grant) and leaves them to their chosen ways, and they (like Judas) by transgression fall. (Acts 1:25) perishing in their own corruption (2 Peter 2:12)

To continue, it is true to say that the elect of God will be irresistibly and absolutely drawn. I assume that Mr Cloud denies it, and if so he goes further than most Fundamentalist non Calvinists usually go. If God decrees to do something - and are people saved without God's decree? - then that decree must see fruition. Otherwise you end up with a frustrated God, whose decrees are a mere wishlist. When I held to the classic non Calvinist evangelical line i.e. that God elected me in response to my faith (which He forsaw) I took the line that my coming to Christ then was inevitable. Can God elect people (whether by sovereign election or by responsive election) and there is the possibility that they will not come? This is dangerous theology, away and beyond the classic non Reformed evangelical line. Personally, I am surprised to see that Mr Cloud is prepared to go down this road. Generally, he keeps within the parameters of his own group. To a Calvinist, the classic non Reformed evangelical line throws up inconsistencies. Mr Cloud seems to be removing these inconsistencies, not by coming over to the Calvinistic position, but by practically stating (at least by implication) that God can decree something and it is possible that such a decree is not carried out.

If this were true, the Holy Spirit would not give such dire warnings and exhortations to professing believers about the possibility of apostasy, because if they are elected they could not possibly perish and if they are not elected, nothing they could do would change their status.
The key word here is "professing" because a man may profess what is not true. Not every professing believer is a true believer. Judas professed to be saved, but he was never really converted. The same for those folk in Matthew 7:22-23 etc., If I were chatting Mr Cloud on this matter, I would ask him to clarify whether he is referring in this instance to empty professions. Any dealings I have had with him (via email) seem more designed to close down any amiable discussion. So I must leave it open as far as Mr Cloud's views are concerned. I do not propose to assume anything on his part, based on what he may or may not mean.

However, that does not prevent me from stating that Calvinists believe that God who has ordained the end of every matter, also ordains the means to that end. He has ordained that every last one of His elect will be infallibly saved and gathered home. He ensures this happens through indiscriminate evangelism (to bring them to Christ) and also through the means of grace (to encourage them and help them to persevere unto the end) While I do not doubt that all the elect will be gathered safely home, with none missing, and while I might have assurance that I am among that number, thus making my calling and election sure, yet I must also realise that assurance is one thing, but presumption is another. The warning passages of Hebrews are there to check any presumptions that I might have.

Consider Hebrews 2:3: “How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him.”

This exhortation makes no sense in light of Calvinist doctrines. If election is as the Calvinist teaches and it is a matter of an individual being sovereignly chosen by God, how could the elect neglect salvation and how could the non-elect do anything other than neglect salvation?

Again, the emphasis here is on man's responsibility. Which Calvinists believe in with all their heart. I have said it before on these Calvinist pages, but it is well worth repeating: God is absolutely sovereign. Man is absolutely responsible. I do not try to reconcile them, lest I dilute either truth. I state them both categorically. It is by warnings like these - whether used in an evangelistic sense or used to minister to believers - that God brings his ordained end to pass. A Hyper Calvinist beleives that God has ordained the end, but not the means thereto. Hence the Hyper Calvinist sits on his theological bottom and does nothing. A non Reformed believer e.g. an Arminian or someone from Mr Cloud's particular school of doctrine practically belives that God has ordained the means but not the end. The whole tone of Mr Cloud's article seems to rob God of any certainty. It is one thing to contend that man is responsible - and in this I agree 100% with Mr Cloud - but it seems that Mr Cloud wants to put man in the driving seat and relegate God to being but an interested and generally helpful passenger. I say this, because there is at least a querying in Mr Cloud's position of the power of God's decree.

Consider Hebrews 3:12-14: “Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God. But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end.”

If the elect are predetermined “sovereignly” and if election has nothing whatsoever to do with the sinner himself and if he is irresistibly drawn and sovereignly kept so that he surely perseveres, what could this exhortation possibly mean? How could the sovereignly elected, irresistibly drawn elect depart from God, and how could the non-elect do anything other than depart from God?

Having dealt with the reason why God exhorts us to do what He decrees will be done i.e. that He has ordained both the end and the means thereto, let us deal here with the reason why the non elect can do nothing else than depart from God. He mentions it above and repeats it here. As indicated in the opening paragraph, the only reason why the non elect depart from God is because they love darkness rather than light because their deeds are evil (John 3:19) This is the reason which the Saviour gave and there is no reason why Calvinists (or their critics) should try and think of any other. God simply leaves the non elect sinner, to whom He owes absolutely nothing, to his own sinful desires. The non elect sinner gets what he wants - to be left alone to enjoy his sins - while the elect sinner is graciously given a new heart and a new desire after the things of God.

Surely Mr Cloud believes that the elect sinner is sovereignly kept so that he surely perseveres? In his main work against Calvinism, found here and answered here, Mr Cloud finds time to say something good about Calvinism. Which is nice. Under the thought: "Some of the things I appreciate about Calvinism" he writes: "Third, Calvinism gives eternal security to the believer. Calvinism promises eternal security to the believer, because it knows that (1) salvation is entirely of God’s grace and thus depends nothing whatsoever on man’s puny works whether good or bad, (2) God has elected and ordained the saved person to a glorious eternal inheritance, and (3) the saved persevere in the faith through the effective working of the indwelling Holy Spirit. In this it is right on target." Why then is it a problem now? Has Mr Cloud shifted ground from his original position? Is it possible for a real, genuine, Spirit born, blood washed, regenerate Christian to so fall away from grace, as to be damned in hell? If it is possible...has it ever happened? And if so, on what basis were they ever elected, even by Mr Cloud's "God's grace + my faith = my election" formula? I am trying here to close the gap in the differences between what is being set forth as our positions. I cannot close that gap completely, because the difference is real and within the subject, fundamental, but it is possible to remove misconceptions and thus reduce the deficit. But if Mr Cloud is insisting that it is now wrong for Calvinists to believe that the elect are sovereignly kept so that they perseveres, then that gap widens again and does so even more so than when he wrote his previous article. Again, I must register my surprise. I have never branded Mr Cloud as an Arminian. Apart from the fact he disdains this title, and I have no desire to create needless tensions, his position, at least on this matter never warranted it. I perceive, at least from his comment son this page, a leaning in that direction.

Consider Hebrews 4:9-11: “There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his. Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.”

How could this exhortation possibly apply to TULIP type election? This passage says the rest of salvation is something that every person must seek to enter into and all are urged to do so, but the doctrine of “sovereign” election teaches us that those elected to God’s rest are predetermined solely by God and they have no choice in the matter and will assuredly enter into His rest.

Consider Hebrews 6:4-6: “For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.”

If TULIP theology is true, why the exhortation? How could the elect fall away? And how could the non-elect do anything but fall away?

Consider Hebrews 10:26-29: “For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?”

Again, if TULIP theology is true, why would such an exhortation be given to professing believers? If they are sovereignly elected, they will surely persevere and if they aren’t they surely won’t. According to Calvinist doctrine, it has nothing to do with them or what they do.

Mr Clou is wrong here and wrong by his own admission when he said that he appreciated the Calvinist position on the Doctrine of the Perseverance of saints, both quoted above and added to here. In another reason why he said that he appreciated our position, he wrote (and I quote) "Fourth, Calvinism teaches that the elect will give evidence of their calling. The Calvinist knows that salvation produces a dramatic change in a person’s life, and in this he is right on target. Any “salvation” that does not result in a change of life and direction and thinking and purpose is not a biblical salvation." This cannot be reconciled with the above paragraph. What does Calvin say on this passage? Does he say anything along these lines that the elect have nothing to do with these words? Does he "shush" the troubled believer and assure him that since he is elect, then this passage is not for him? I think it would be appropiate to actually quote a leading Calvinist at this stage. (It is significant that Mr Cloud has refrained from doing so in this entire criticism. If we return to our court case scenario envisaged above, the complete lack of evidence would result in the case being thrown out of court.) But to Calvin. He concludes his comments on this passage with these words of application: "Who soever then considers that he has to do with God, must (except he be extremely stupid) really tremble and quake; nay, such an apprehension of God must necessarily absorb the whole man, so that no sorrows, or torments can be compared with it. In short, whenever our flesh allures us or we flatter ourselves by any means in our sins, this admonition alone ought to be sufficient to arouse us, that “it is a fearfulthing to fall into to hands of the living God;” for his wrath is furnished with dreadful punishments which are to be forever." What mars Mr Cloud's criticisms of the Calvinistic doctrine is that we are more often than not treated to a display of what Mr Cloud perceives to be the Calvinist position, rather than what actually is. It is really only a matter of untangling his sometimes valid criticisms, try and answer them, and then show the rest to be rather baseless.

If election is “sovereign” and “unconditional” in a Calvinist sense and the believer has no choice whatsoever in the matter of salvation, these passages don’t make any sense.

We have already answered the idea that the believer has "no choice whatsoever in the matter of salvation" above.

If, on the other hand, election involves an element of foreknowledge (1 Pet. 1:2) and involves a personal choice on the part of the sinner (“whosoever believeth,” Jn. 3:15, 16; 12:46; Acts 10:43; Rom. 9:33; 10:11; 1 John 5:1; Rev. 22:17; etc.), the exhortations and warnings in Hebrews make perfect sense. Because if this is true, and we know that it is because the Bible everywhere teaches it, then the sinner, being given light from Christ (Jn. 1:9) and being drawn by Christ (Jn. 12:32) and being convicted and enlightened by the Holy Spirit (Jn. 16:8) can, because of this gracious divine enablement, either believe on Christ or not and it is also possible for a sinner to come close to salvation without actually possessing it. Therefore he needs to be exhorted to believe on Jesus Christ truly and sincerely and not to turn away before he has been genuinely born again and indwelt by the Holy Spirit and adopted into God’s family.

The foreknowledge of 1 Peter 1:2 has nothing to do with God looking down the long corridor of time, seeing who would believe, and electing them to salvation. This is reading into the passage what simply isn't there. Foreknowledge in the Bible is linked with foreordination - the only other place where the word appears in the AV is in Acts 2:23 where Christ was delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God. God foreknows because God foreordains. God works all things after the counsel of His own will (Ephesians 1:11) and therefore, "There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the LORD" (Proverbs 21:30) That God has elected a people according to His sovereign grace can no more be doubted than God Himself. That they will come and will be raised up (safe) in the last day is the very glory of the gospel (John 6:44) It is this that steels the Christian evangelist to go out and scatter the good seed as much as he can. In eternity, every last one of Christ's elect wil have been gathered home. The non elect will receive the condemnation they are righteously due for their chosen rejection of Jesus Christ. The non elect will blame non but themselves for their folly and sin.

We must leave it there. We do have a Calvinism emails page where these things are worked through. It is not my policy to write articles and not take time or effort to clarify or defend them.