New Evangelicalism, A Very Great Danger to the Lord's Churches

[kobuk]

A three part SermonAudio message from David Cloud.

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=112401232649

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=112401233945

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=112401234715

Please take the time to first listen to brother Cloud preach at least one of the above three sermons, before commenting about this subject. I recognize the fact that the Holy Spirit is the final authority on what is truth and error. I sense a lot of truth in the above three sermons. I copied down the basic outline of the series for you here...

THE 6 PRINCIPLES OF NEW EVANGELICALISM

1 A REPUDIATION OF SEPERATION
2 ECUMENICAL RELATIONSHIPS ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN DOCTRINE
3 HAS A LOVE FOR POSITIVISM
4 IT WANTS TO RE-EXAMINE DOCTRINE
5 PRIDE OF INTELLECT AND PRIDE OF SCHOLARSHIP
6 IT PUTS SOCIAL AND POLITICAL ACTIVITY ON THE SAME LEVEL AS THE GREAT COMMISSION
--------------------------------------------------------------

The slippery slope of comprimize

TOLERATION
ACCOMODATION
COOPERATION
CONTAIMINATION
CAPITULATION

The more comprimize, the greater the danger to Yahshua's Churches. Toleration leads to accomodation, which leads to cooperation, ...etc.
------------------------------------------------------------
I'm searching for the best direction to take with my increasing motivation to make spiritual progress in the right direction. If you are also on the same journey i think the above will be of useful service to you.

 

[FreeinChrist]

IMHO, listening to David Cloud is not the answer.

Try Inductive Bible study - like used by Precepts ministries. Prayer is wonderful. Participation in church and church missions is wonderful.

 

[DeaconDean]

kobuk, before you place a lot of stock on any theologian, it wouldn't hurt to research his/her background.

I'm going to place here a link for you about David Cloud.

It is an article entitled:

David W. Cloud
is a
Cloud Without Water (Jude 12)
November 2002

http://www.atruechurch.info/cloud.html

Please, please, before we walk blindly, and follow any person who teaches something that we think sounds biblical, research his thelogy, and him/her.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[jlujan69]

Please, please, before we walk blindly, and follow any person who teaches something that we think sounds biblical, research his thelogy, and him/her.

God Bless

Till all are one.

You are correct. While we Fundmentalists claim to rely on Scripture alone, we can find ourselves in a very similar situation as Roman Catholics, who openly accept traditions of men as equal in authority to the Bible. We do this by clinging to theologians' teachings a little too tightly and referring to them more and more frequently when considering doctrine than by the Bible alone and the Holy Ghost. Hard core Calvinists and Arminians (of the sort who claim that to believe the other's teachings is to damn your soul to Hell) fall neatly into this category, despite their protestations to the contrary. My general rule when reading theology or other instructional Christian literature is to treat them as I do the commentaries in my Bible--as useful for learning certain things, but certainly not equal in authority to God's Word. I'd even go so far as to say that any opinion held by any of the Apostles that wasn't included in Scripture shouldn't be held as infallible truth, though the opinion may actually be correct. The lone exception to this would be if there were any teaching of Jesus Himself that wasn't ultimately written down ( but that's another topic for another day).

 

[DeaconDean]

You are correct. While we Fundmentalists claim to rely on Scripture alone, we can find ourselves in a very similar situation as Roman Catholics, who openly accept traditions of men as equal in authority to the Bible. We do this by clinging to theologians' teachings a little too tightly and referring to them more and more frequently when considering doctrine than by the Bible alone and the Holy Ghost. Hard core Calvinists and Arminians (of the sort who claim that to believe the other's teachings is to damn your soul to Hell) fall neatly into this category, despite their protestations to the contrary. My general rule when reading theology or other instructional Christian literature is to treat them as I do the commentaries in my Bible--as useful for learning certain things, but certainly not equal in authority to God's Word. I'd even go so far as to say that any opinion held by any of the Apostles that wasn't included in Scripture shouldn't be held as infallible truth, though the opinion may actually be correct. The lone exception to this would be if there were any teaching of Jesus Himself that wasn't ultimately written down ( but that's another topic for another day).

Kudos to you Brother. Why is it, that this simple fact, research, escapes most?

A classic example of following a person blindly: the Rev. Jim Jones.

Reps to you brother!

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[sheina]

kobuk, before you place a lot of stock on any theologian, it wouldn't hurt to research his/her background.

I'm going to place here a link for you about David Cloud.

It is an article entitled:

David W. Cloud
is a
Cloud Without Water (Jude 12)
November 2002

http://www.atruechurch.info/cloud.html

Please, please, before we walk blindly, and follow any person who teaches something that we think sounds biblical, research his thelogy, and him/her.

God Bless

Till all are one.

I checked out that site--IMO, it is nothing but a bunch of lies about David Cloud. Instead of backing up what is said against David Cloud with scripture, that site simply cites what David Cloud has said out of context. I have read much of what David Cloud has written---I certainly don't agree with everything he says--but as far as calling him a false teacher, that is a false accusation--and Satan is "the accuser of the brethren" I certainly would not call that site a "discernment" site--especially when the first sentence on that link says

David Cloud is a false teacher (2 Peter 2:1-3) of the more "fundamental" sort. He edits a magazine entitled O Timothy (subscription cost of $20 a year) and directs a way of death publishing ministry called "Way of Life."

I went to the Home page of that site and one of the signs in that pic said "Jesus Caused 9-11-01" Do you really believe that? What kind of a church or group is this "True Church"? Almost sounds like the "Westboro Baptist Church of Fred Phelps"

 

[DeaconDean]

I checked out that site--IMO, it is nothing but a bunch of lies about David Cloud. Instead of backing up what is said against David Cloud with scripture, that site simply cites what David Cloud has said out of context. I have read much of what David Cloud has written---I certainly don't agree with everything he says--but as far as calling him a false teacher, that is a false accusation--and Satan is "the accuser of the brethren" I certainly would not call that site a "discernment" site--especially when the first sentence on that link says

I went to the Home page of that site and one of the signs in that pic said "Jesus Caused 9-11-01" Do you really believe that? What kind of a church or group is this "True Church"? Almost sounds like the "Westboro Baptist Church of Fred Phelps"

Sis, you have your opinion of the man, I have mine. Surely I am allowed to present views that differ from that of the OP's am I not?

And for the record, I don't often disagree with kobuk. And he knows this.

And for the record, David Cloud does not believe in election and God's sovereign grace.

http://www.corkfpc.com/cloudgodschoice.html

And to me, that alone makes me question this man.

But by all means sister. Believe and trust the man if you will.

I will be very, very cautious of him myself.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[mophed20]

we should not presume to judge this man. let the man condemn himself if he is so proud, but if there is a way, pray for him, that the Holy Spirit would bring him back. everyone here seems to have an opinion of the man, i don't, because i have never heard of him. the sight that is critiqueing Mr. cloud is pretty darn lame, and pretty biased, so i wouldn't take that as Truth; besides the author is, by no means at all, saying those things in love! but it's true, it would be good to check out the person who teaches before you start applying that to your life as Truth! always be skeptical of man, measure it with the scriptures. if you all are worried about a bunch of fundamentalism, or the like, you should check out the early church. ya sure, there have been heretics, but their works have been branded by church authorities as heresy! be wary! there have always been (and always will be) wolves in sheeps clothing. there is a lot that the early church fathers have to say that are very applicable to today, very helpful in understanding a little more, not tainted by post-modernism, and very close to the source!: the apostle paul (and Jesus Himself). i am not going to listen to the sermon, because i have a lot to learn when it comes to Truth myself, so i want to be careful for now.

David

 

[DeaconDean]

we should not presume to judge this man. let the man condemn himself if he is so proud, but if there is a way, pray for him, that the Holy Spirit would bring him back. everyone here seems to have an opinion of the man, i don't, because i have never heard of him. the sight that is critiqueing Mr. cloud is pretty darn lame, and pretty biased, so i wouldn't take that as Truth; besides the author is, by no means at all, saying those things in love! but it's true, it would be good to check out the person who teaches before you start applying that to your life as Truth! always be skeptical of man, measure it with the scriptures. if you all are worried about a bunch of fundamentalism, or the like, you should check out the early church. ya sure, there have been heretics, but their works have been branded by church authorities as heresy! be wary! there have always been (and always will be) wolves in sheeps clothing. there is a lot that the early church fathers have to say that are very applicable to today, very helpful in understanding a little more, not tainted by post-modernism, and very close to the source!: the apostle paul (and Jesus Himself). i am not going to listen to the sermon, because i have a lot to learn when it comes to Truth myself, so i want to be careful for now.

David

That is so true.

But what I have observed from my own experiences reading this mans material, is that he does not have nor does he serve a sovereign God. My Bible tells me that it is God who created everything. And because God did, we have no right to question him.

"Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?" -Rom. 9:20-21 (KJV)

And this is the same man who says that God based His choice on His "foreknowledge." (cf. 1 Pet. 1:2)

If, and that is a mighty big if, if God did base His choice on His foreknowledge of who would and would not accept the Gospel, then the writer of Acts and Peter are lying to us.

"Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:" -Acts 10:34 (KJV)

If David Cloud is correct, then God choice us because He already knew that we would accept and believe. And that the other wouldn't accept and believe. And that, no matter how you interpret it, means that God had respect for us and choose us because we would accept and believe and God did not choose others because God knew they would not accept and believe.

And we know for a fact that God is not a respecter of persons.

I'm sorry, but I serve a Sovereign God. My God sits up on high and reigns supreme, where "His will be done" always. It is by His hands that the oceans stop where they do and go no further. And it was ultimately God who came to man, not the other way around.

That is how I see it.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[mophed20]

hmmm, i have never put forth a large amount of thought in the debate between foreknowledge and whatever the opposing argument (i'm sure the way i wrote that informs you how ignorant of the subject i am) and i am not really sure what to believe because both sides have verses from the same Bible. so i am trusting that the early church has the answer. haven't found out what it is yet, but i have always wondered how God works. but maybe because He is not the respecter of man, He has not made Himself fully known by any man because we wretches always seem to find a way to glorify ourselves, even when the subject is the most Holy of all subjects! so, i don't think us knowing beyond a shadow of a doubt is neither profitable let alone possible. Indeed! God is sovereign! but He is not to be split by way of a dichotomy! (referring to foreknowledge, and the opposing nature) because God is in fact God, and can do whatever the heck He wants (except sin...of course). and i have a feeling someone could be itching to ask me if God changes then...no, but as we all, God does not do the same thing all the time (i.e.-different ways of defeating the israelites' foes, picking totally inconsistent--in our human minds--types of people to prophecy, preach, teach, fight, etc. and so many other things God has done that seem inconsistent) the one thing that is very consistent is that He glorifies Himself through it all!

david
p.s.-deacondean, i really like your closing verse! (1 sam 2:6-8). very cool verse!

 

[DeaconDean]

hmmm, i have never put forth a large amount of thought in the debate between foreknowledge and whatever the opposing argument (i'm sure the way i wrote that informs you how ignorant of the subject i am) and i am not really sure what to believe because both sides have verses from the same Bible. so i am trusting that the early church has the answer. haven't found out what it is yet, but i have always wondered how God works. but maybe because He is not the respecter of man, He has not made Himself fully known by any man because we wretches always seem to find a way to glorify ourselves, even when the subject is the most Holy of all subjects! so, i don't think us knowing beyond a shadow of a doubt is neither profitable let alone possible. Indeed! God is sovereign! but He is not to be split by way of a dichotomy! (referring to foreknowledge, and the opposing nature) because God is in fact God, and can do whatever the heck He wants (except sin...of course). and i have a feeling someone could be itching to ask me if God changes then...no, but as we all, God does not do the same thing all the time (i.e.-different ways of defeating the israelites' foes, picking totally inconsistent--in our human minds--types of people to prophecy, preach, teach, fight, etc. and so many other things God has done that seem inconsistent) the one thing that is very consistent is that He glorifies Himself through it all!

david
p.s.-deacondean, i really like your closing verse! (1 sam 2:6-8). very cool verse!

Those particular verses came to me during one of the darkest hours of my life. Whenever I feel the world crushing me, I trun to these verses and I can continue on.

Just a little reference for you. I see that you have an Orthodox icon. I don't know where you stand on the early church fathers, but here is a link:

http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/gills_archive.htm#2

Near the bottom of the page, you'll see a section called "The Cause of God and Truth."

Divided into four parts. Part 4, Chapters 1 and 3 address several issues you may want to read on. The author quotes the early church fathers and what they taught and believed.

I'm not saying you'll agree with them. But I do say that a person should read both sides of the coin. That way they are fully informed, and they can come to their own conclusion based upon the facts.

It doesn't matter what I say or what you say, or what they say. What does matter is what does God say.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[mophed20]

i am having a really hard time concentrating, and i don't understand the point of view this author has, nor do i know who the author is! and what authority does he have? maybe these few things will help me to better understand what is being said. because, to me, it just seems like a bunch of big words being thrown around with a few basic words. a bit of a tossed salad of rhetoric..

a little background on me might be good too. there isn't an icon for an "inquirer in the Orthodox Church," but if there were, i would have put that up there. but i am not chrismated/baptized in the church (which would make me Orthodox), so i am not official, nor have i come to the point that i have decided to become one yet. i still have a lot to learn, but what i have learned, i am slowly applying to my life, and realizing that there really is more to orthodoxy than a bunch of idol mongering, incense sniffing, bigots. that was my point of view before entering in, and i have learned that the reason for all that they do is absolutely the most beautiful worship i have ever seen a congregation offer to God. so, long story short, i am not orthodox, just Christian. (i used to go to a baptist church...quite a difference, that's for sure!) i don't know if you have concluded this or not, but i am not absolutely adamant in my advice to seek counsel among the early church fathers, but the counsel i have found has not failed me yet. but this is totally off topic! haha!

so...foreknowledge...predestination...free-will...yep...hehe. i will probably read the link you gave to me tomorrow. i am tired, it's late! take care!

David

 

[DeaconDean]

Since you are fairly "new," and not to confuse you. What John Gill is trying to show and prove is that Election, Predestination, are taught in the Bible and by the early church fathers, and that "free will" as most know it, was not a doctrine they believed. This can be clearly seen in the Augustine and Pelegian debates and the Counsel of Orange results. Pelegus supported free will and it was condemned by the Counsel of Milan, and by the Counsel of Ephesus. But it would not die. It gave birth to Semi-Pelegianism, and later on, James Arminus picked up on it and it is still around today.

When looking into these areas, with all due respect since you are enquiring into Orthodox teachings, you will not agree with them. And, since you are "new", it really would benefit you greatly to concentrate on learning the basics of the faith first, then move on into the deep things of God. (1 Cor. 2:10 KJV)

I sincerely hope and pray that the Lord will bless you in your endevors.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[mophed20]

i have actually been inquiring for a little while, and have been learning the basics, and a little of the more complex stuff, so i am fine with the more harder things. i can go with the flow, i am willing to set aside my own personal modern opinions of what the Bible says and accept what some of the early fathers (obviously keeping in mind that they are fallible humans) obviously, i would want to be skeptical and question it in order to make it my own and not just blindly accept it. i could spend the rest of my life studying orthodoxy, and just scratch the surface, that's how deep i am finding it to be, many orthodox would agree. but i appreciate your concern, i have many people alongside me to guide me through this deep area of Christianity (many of whom are converts and understand what it's like to go from protestantism to Orthodoxy, and the confusion, questions, etc.). it's really cool. and the timing for all of this is really weird/awesome, because i was getting to the point of being so bitter towards modern thought and how it's poisoned so much of Christianity these past few centuries, very small doses, almost unnoticable, but it changes so much. so God put this in front of me and He was like, "hey! david! this may help!" and it sounds like that whole modern kind of thing seeping into the church is sort of what the OP was referring to. i didn't listen to the sermons, but i read the outline, and it just seems like there are some good intentions in all that. so it's not totally irrelevant. hehe. have a good night, deacon!

david

 

[sheina]

Sis, you have your opinion of the man, I have mine. Surely I am allowed to present views that differ from that of the OP's am I not?

And for the record, I don't often disagree with kobuk. And he knows this.

And for the record, David Cloud does not believe in election and God's sovereign grace.

http://www.corkfpc.com/cloudgodschoice.html

And to me, that alone makes me question this man.

But by all means sister. Believe and trust the man if you will.

I will be very, very cautious of him myself.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Everybody is entitled to their opinion--isn't that "free will"?
I have been receiving O Timothy for almost 10 years--I have not found false doctrine in that newsletter--although I don't agree with everything David Cloud teaches, I would not consider him to be a false teacher as that site makes him out to be.

According to the following article "Calvin's Camels", David Cloud does believe in "biblical" election and the sovereignty of God. Here is an excerpt and the link:

CALVIN’S CAMELS

Following are just a few of the camels that John Calvin swallowed when he followed Augustine, that “Doctor of the Roman Catholic Church,” into the error of “sovereign election” and when he reasoned that God would not be sovereign if man could reject Him and if salvation could be accepted or rejected by the sinner.


I realize that a staunch Calvinist has an answer for everything. He can flee immediately into his stronghold of making clever and intricate man-made distinctions between electing grace and common grace, between degrees of the love of God, between desiderative vs. decretive will and antecedent hypothetical will, you name it. I am not writing the article for such a person. I am writing it for the simple believer who loves God’s Word and who has not been overawed by intellectual brilliance and brainwashed by human theology.
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/calvins-camels.html

Just because a believer rejects Calvin's teachings does not make that person a false teacher.

 

[DeaconDean]

According to the following article "Calvin's Camels", David Cloud does believe in "biblical" election and the sovereignty of God.

Just because a believer rejects Calvin's teachings does not make that person a false teacher.

So, you think so sister. Well let me show this:

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]SOME MAJOR FALSE DOCTRINES THAT ARE A DANGER TO BIBLE-BELIEVING CHURCHES TODAY[/FONT]

November 3, 2005 (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article) -
The following are some of the major false doctrines that are a particular danger to Bible-believing churches in our day and a concise biblical refutation of them.

12. The false teaching that God chooses who will be saved and that only those who are chosen can be saved (Calvinism)
Bible Answer:
a. The Bible says that God wants all men to be saved (1 Tim. 2:3-5; 2 Pet. 3:9).
b. Jesus died for the sins of all men, not just some who are pre-chosen (1 John 2:1-2).
c. God has ordained that every person who believes on Christ will be saved (Jn. 6:40).
d. God has commanded that the gospel be preached to every person (Mark 16:15).
e. The Holy Spirit convicts every sinner and Jesus draws and gives light to every sinner (Jn. 1:9; 12:32; 16:7-8).
f. Believers are the elect of God, but that does not mean that God chooses some to be saved and the others not to be saved. Election is based on God’s foreknowledge (1 Pet. 1:2).

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/major-falsedoctrines.html

Now sister, the Bible says:

"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will," -Eph 1:4-5 (KJV)

"And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified." -Rom. 8:28-30 (KJV)

These verse alone scream of election. Did God not chose us before this world was made? Scriptures say so.

Did God not not predestinate us to be conformed to His Son? Scriptures say so.

Further, Jesus Himself said:

"And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened." -Mt. 24:22 (KJV)

Jesus who is God, talked of the "elect."

Yet this man, David Cloud, in his teachings, basicly denies the doctrine of election. And your David Cloud is an Arminian. His theology screams of it. And Mr. Cloud, will not, rather, has not, addressed the passages of scripture where God said He has chosen the "elect" before this world was ever made.

His statement here:

Believers are the elect of God, but that does not mean that God chooses some to be saved

Says he denies what scripture states plainly.

You have your opinion of the man, I have mine.

I have shown how he does not have a sovereign God and denies what the Bible plainly teaches.

I am done arguing with you.

You continue to hold this man in high esteem. I will say may th4e Lord bless you in your convictions.

As for me, I'll take God's word before I take the word of a man any time.

I'm outta here.

God bless you in your convictions.

God Bless

Till all are on.

 

[DeaconDean]

shenia, perhaps I am a bit hasty on this matter.

Let me put it this way, if you like the man, and you like his teaching, fine. May the Lord bless you in your convictions.

Me, I have my opinions and they are mine. Obviously they aren't the same as yours.

But, I do not adhere to any teaching of a man whose theology is Arminian in nature.

And he is Arminian in his theology.

His statement here:

Believers are the elect of God, but that does not mean that God chooses some to be saved

Shows that he does have a God who is sovereign. In light of what scripture teaches and says very plainly, God chose His "elect" before this world was ever formed. (cf. Eph. 1:4)

Let me say this, you like the man, you like his teachings. Fine. I say this in a Christian manner, and don't take it any other way, I do hope and pray that he blesses you in your life.

As for me, I don't like the man.

You have your opinion of the man, I have mine.

May the Lord bless you in your convictions.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[kobuk]

I'm going to have to pass on the section of the discussion about Calvinism and Armenianism. Since that's an area i've never studied for some reason. It's never been a critical issue to me, whether or not Yah calls lost sinners in real time or predestines them. I can read the Scriptures and form my preliminary views. I think it's clear that there is a call made by Yah. And those He calls He carries forward from there, without us being snatched away. I'll figure out the rest of how that all works later.

sheina has done an excellent job of holding the reigns of this thread.

David Cloud is a fundamentalist preacher and is well recognized as such. I don't know what all thus fuss was about that. He's been around for decades and is supported by thousands of other Fundamentalist preachers. On SermonAudio and in Missionary work and in Book Publishing and elsewhere. Bible Conferances and Schools are two more areas he has a very solid standing.

When i stated at the beginning of this thread i had said "I recognize the fact that the Holy Spirit is the final authority on what is truth and error." So while i appreciate the reminders from some not to become a believer sort of speak in David Cloud, i thought i had clearly differentiated already the difference between man and Yah.

I think the 3 Sermons located at the start of this thread have a lot to teach the true and non-apostate Churches that are being held faithful by Yahshua.

If someone is heavily involved in making money singing, writing books or running a Televangelist TV Network the messages i've presented might not be well recieved. I understand that.

I've made that choice of being faithful to The Word. Wherever the chips fall so be it. Yahshua was a fundamentalist. As were all His Apostles.

 

[mophed20]

so i looked up John Gill, and the fact that he is a hyper-Calvinist really turns me off to his opinions of the early church fore-Fathers. sorry, i am really not a fan of neither Calvinism nor Armenianism as theologies. they are very much the product of modern thought, and that is not what the church was founded on. i am very skeptical of modern teachings because that is not the product of what Paul started, not directly at least. so maybe another resource about the early church would be better. sorry. it's really biased.

 

[DeaconDean]

so i looked up John Gill, and the fact that he is a hyper-Calvinist really turns me off to his opinions of the early church fore-Fathers.

What did I say earlier:

When looking into these areas, with all due respect since you are enquiring into Orthodox teachings, you will not agree with them.

Told you so.

God Bless

Till all are one.