Dave Cloud: "I challenge anyone to show me where the Scripture encourages the believer to treat some doctrine as 'non-essential"

Bob Hayton did a great job exposing how David Cloud twists things. Unfortunately, people follow Cloud’s writings and then tend to believe that they are the last of the holy remnant of fundamentalism.

Thanks, Joe. It’s one thing to have principled differences of opinion with Mark Dever. It’s quite another to exaggerate how bad any fellowship with him would be. A friend of mine noted about this that we need to acknowledge there are degrees of fellowship, and a difference between fellowship and mere association.

The problem with Cloud’s argument is not that with respect to doctrine there is no such thing as “non-essentials”, on that he is right but no one is forwarding that argument. The issue is with respect to degrees of fellowship, that is not the same categorically as doctrine itself or our treatment of Scripture. He fails to make the distinction, hence he creates an argument that no one is really making.

I contend he’s wrong on both points actually. And in my article I do say my main focus is on the latter, but I do point out the former as an error. The original fundamentalist movement was born because of a recognition that certain doctrines are fundamental. It boggles my mind that we as fundamentalists have come so far as to question the very validity of any such “fundamentals”!

It all makes the head spin. The problem with being dogmatic on the issue of separation and all its synonyms is that there is just no possible way to be perfectly consistent about it. For example, on Bro. Cloud’s site, there is a http://wayoflife.org/directory/oh.html church directory . I have visited and even attended several churches on that list, and can say from personal experience that some of them have serious doctrinal and methodological issues, and the leadership of those churches associate with other even more problematic churches. Am I supposed to take it on faith that all of Bro. Cloud’s associations are as pure as the driven snow?

So- those churches are recommended on what basis? Not to mention that this list is as old at the T-Rex. Some of the pastors are dead, retired, and the churches have moved.

[Bob Hayton] I contend he’s wrong on both points actually. And in my article I do say my main focus is on the latter, but I do point out the former as an error. The original fundamentalist movement was born because of a recognition that certain doctrines are fundamental. It boggles my mind that we as fundamentalists have come so far as to question the very validity of any such “fundamentals”!

When you refer to certain doctrines being treated as “fundamental” with respect to the fundamentalist movement being formed, it was not, as you appear to be implying, one that included the view that there are non-essential portions of Scripture, in and of themselves, which is the argument against which Cloud is contending (again an argument no one is making in the first place, at least none of those he lists). Rather, it was the expression of essential doctrines with respect to essential Christian orthodoxy, not the value of all Scripture.

Again, Cloud contends rightly, there are no non-essential doctrines but he is speaking with respect to the value of Scripture, in and of itself. This argument he makes is based on either a misunderstanding of the use of “non-essentials” in the context of fellowship by others or a failure or inability to discriminate in his minds the various uses.

But, as to fundamentalism itself, when it treats what one would identify as “essentials” it does not do so with the view there is such things as portions of Scripture, in and of themselves, that are non-essential (again, what Cloud is arguing in his misunderstanding of others and their use of “non-essential) but that with respect to orthodox Christian doctrine and its expression, certain doctrines are the fundamental gatekeepers and if a man or woman fails on these they can go no further in their attempts at integration or fellowship within such.

Cloud isn’t alone. Others here at SI even have contended that there are no non-essential doctrines. They have further stated that we shouldn’t settle for doctrinal error anywhere and thus all doctrine should be separated over. On my blog some of the articles I linked to include comments debating this very point. The very idea that some doctrines are “essential” and “fundamental” and hence worth uniting around is what is being disputed. Al Mohler’s concept of theological triage with first-tier, second-tier, and third-tier doctrinal matters is vehemently argued against. In Mohler’s construction, everything is still important, but some are more important than others. The hard-core fundamentalists like Cloud and others are denying this. At least that is how I’m reading it from multiple interactions with people on that very point.

This is one of the chief problems I have experienced with WOL literature by Cloud. It is not that he always plays fast and free with facts (although that has happened at times) but that he misrepresents the context, purpose, and intention of those stating the facts. I agree with Alex that there is no “non-essential” doctrine or teaching in Scripture. Every part of Scripture is essential to growth in godliness but not every part of Scripture is essential to the system of faith. For example, if we did not have the book of Leviticus, the faith would not be destroyed. Is Leviticus essential, yes! otherwise God would not have given it to us, but is it essential to “the faith”? (to take one of the examples) I don’t disagree with Cloud (and other fundamentalists) concerning the dress standard of women not wearing pants because I think it is a “non-essential” but because I believe he is wrong and his interpretation and application of the texts used to prove that “doctrine” are in error. I don’t think that men with long hair is okay because it is “non-essential” but because I think that we need to have an honest interpretation of Corinthians noticing that the one verse about long hair on men is given in incidental format and the whole of the text is speaking of women in worship. Cloud himself contradicts himself and shows that he has an erroneous concept of what the vast majority of fundamentalists and evangelicals mean by “essential” when he says that “not all doctrine carries the same significance” that is what we mean by “essential” or “non-essential.” ???? Sadly, I am not sure if Cloud is mistaken or simply polemically and intentionally misrepresenting these facts and terms. But I have to say, his article hardly seems essential.

[Bob Hayton] Cloud isn’t alone. Others here at SI even have contended that there are no non-essential doctrines.

Non-essential doctrines with respect to what?

I used to be a member at a church that seriously demanded conformity on almost every imaginable point of doctrine possible. That much uniformity was demanded to have any kind of meaningful separation. Short of absolute uniformity, they expected at least a trajectory of getting closer to “the truth”. “The truth” included courtship only, KJV only, skirts only, non-beaty music only, etc. etc. etc.

The original fundamentalists didn’t teach that some doctrine is totally optional as in “who cares”. They taught that some is more foundational and fundamental than others. So as a Presbyterian scholar, Machen could unite with some uneducated Baptist preachers because they shared an allegiance to fundamental doctrines. And that unity was for a mission of defending the true Gospel from unbelieving modernists of the day.

I can be in a fellowship with churches with whom I don’t agree on every single point of doctrine, if that fellowship is about mission work or reaching the city or just being in a directory so other Christians can more easily find my church. But for Cloud, every point of doctrine is so essential to fellowship that he couldn’t join that fellowship in any sense.

I do think Cloud is unclear and others are as well. I’m having a hard time making sense of their argument, arguing on their behalf. But I’ve been challenged to show that the very idea of fundamental doctrines is historical even. Here’s a quote that I had received from my blog in the past:

God’s truth sanctifies us. It separates us. It isn’t for us to choose what is important to separate over.

You are taking this essential and non-essential doctrine out of thin air. It is neither in Scripture, and it isn’t even historical doctrine. It’s an invention by modern evangelicalism to keep fake unity.

~from http://www.fundamentallyreformed.com/2008/01/30/minimizing-the-gospel-t… this post

[David Cloud] Some try to use Romans 14 to support this philosophy, but Romans 14 does not say that some Bible doctrine is non-essential. It says that we are to allow one another liberty in matters in which the Bible is silent! The examples that Paul gave were eating meat and keeping of holy days. Those are things that the New Testament faith is silent about. There is no doctrine of diet in the New Testament, so it is a matter of Christian liberty.

Actually, Romans 14 does support this philosophy. It is a logical outgrowth of Romans 14. Brother Cloud is mistaken in saying that “eating meat and keeping of holy days” are issues on which the New Testament was silent. It is full of instruction on both — and yet, the instruction yields a diversity of application of the same body of truths, based on differing circumstances, intentions, background, and audiences. I would argue that this is exactly what is going on in many Separation discussions.

I would add that a careful inspection of Dr. Cloud’s associations would doubtless result in someone with whom he fellowships or partners who has a different view about something. His argument cannot possibly be taken to the ultimate extent, since there are so many passages with differing interpretations within the tent of orthodoxy. Nephilim in Gen. 6? Are we really going to fight over what it means?

Alex is right in saying the crux of this is differentiating doctrine from other affirmations of Scripture. David Cloud clearly does not want us to do that. But if you can’t do that, where does your separation end? You disagree with me on the doctrine of how many pin-feathers were on the wings of the covering cherubs of the ark of the covenant? You disagree with me on the number of stops in Gabriel’s trumpet? I am aghast.

It is possible to construct a Scriptural case for cardinal doctrine, based upon Scriptural affirmations about such doctrines. I have put much work into this lately. But nowhere does Scripture use the term “doctrine” for what we mean by “cardinal doctrines” in this discussion.

From the Website of the District of Columbia Baptist Convention under history they state:

“The D.C. Baptist Convention has always been related to the American Baptist Churches USA, and Southern Baptist Convention. The Northern Baptist Convention (precursor of the ABCUSA) was organized at the Calvary Baptist Church building in 1907. When the Southern Baptist Convention was founded in 1845 in Augusta, Georgia, representatives were present from Baptist churches in Washington. In 1998 the D.C. Convention became triply aligned by affiliating with the Progressive National Baptist Convention.”

I became a Christian in the Navy in 1959. I knew nothing. I was Baptized in and joined an American Baptist Church. In 1960 I withdrew my membership. I had read and learned a few things. I discerned that some things were not right with the church and the American Baptists. I was puzzled to lear that Jusitzu Morikawa, the new President of the AB Missions believed that everyone was already saved it was our duty to try and let them know. Soon there was the shock of learning the denials of the deity of Christ, the inspiration of the Bible, etc. Berkeley Baptist Divinity school and other seminaries denied Christ and the efficacious atonement. This was classic liberalism that ruled the ABC as far back as the 1950s.

I then later learned of the Fundamentalist Battles in the old Northern Baptists (now ABC). I also learned of those who had left as far back as 1932 to form the GARBC. Those more moderate remained in but then many again left in 1947 to form the CBA. What was left were classic unregenerate liberals and some moderate, but very indifferent, Evangelicals. However, when the ABC accepted the ordination of Homosexuals a few years ago there was an exit of many more churches. The entire Pacific Southwest Regional and the churches in the regional departed. Some remained together and changed the regional name. Other churches became totally independent.

The American Baptist Churches consists of regionals today. A church is in a regional and through the regional is a member church of the American Baptist Churches. To withdraw from the ABC you would withdraw from the regional. To stay in the regional you stay in the ABC and any other groups the regional is associated with.

This regional is proud of its heritage and history of the ABC. They also are now aligned with the liberals who left the Southern Baptist Convention but also are still a regional aligned with the SBC. They evidently will accept all comers but are indifferent to those who deny Christ and the Gospel.

Here on the west coast there were a fairly large contingent of churches that were broadly Evangelical yet in the regionals of the ABC. They had Fuller graduate pastors and even a few Western CB pastors who crossed back over. However, much of that changed with the homosexual issue. Even those pastors who were not exercised to leave when liberalism ruled everything in the organizations became challenged by members over the homosexual issues. They were able hide the doctrinal issues from laymen but the laymen knew and became finally alarmed over the moral issue of homosexuality.

Th American Baptist Churches and all regionals of their organization still affiliated are blatant and clear advocates of Christ denying, Bible denying, and immorality. If an individual cannot be aware of these issues and the implication and consequences of affiliation with these groups and churches, then they are guilty of sinful ignorance or wholesale indifference to God, Christ, and the Bible. This affiliation with apostasy and apostate leaders who are the blind leading the blind into damnation. There is no issue of essential V. non essential doctrines here.

As most on SI know I am not a fan of the KJVO crowd or the Hyper fundamentalist mentality. However, i have been through, and seen first hand, the battles for truth and the consequences of unwise associations and relationships involving ministry. I am for being alert to that which may involve unforeseen consequences. All change that may involve public ministry involvement, including speaker invitations should be done with purpose and discernment.

I was alarmed that a school like Calvary would invite a hard line 5 point Reformed Baptist like Dever to speak. The first dean at and professors at Calvary Seminary were my professors at Central Baptist Seminary. I believe i knew what they represented in doctrine and separation. I would think that inviting a speaker like Dever would require good reason and good discernment. I was disappointed that Mark Dever was an invited speaker. However, I had no idea that Mark Dever was a pastor of a church with affiliation through a regional to both the American Baptist Churches and the Progressive Baptist Convention. These are church groups dominated by classic liberals. I had read that Dever was Southern Baptist. I assumed that was his, and his churches, only affiliation.

It has been my experience that churches that remained in the ABC had boards that were indifferent to doctrine and the truth of God. Many were just giving assent to truth. The Pastors who did not educate, prod , and eventually overtly seek, to lead these churches out of such blatantly God dishonoring affiliations were often those who may speak loudly, even write evangelically, but carry no stick at all. Mark Dever and Capitol Hill Baptist church appear to not be so indifferent. However, by remaining in such ministry affiliation they support heresy and Gospel indifferentism.

The reality is that if a person joined the Capitol hill Baptist Church they become affiliated through the church and regional with both the ABC and PBC. They become affiliated with the church and through the church to that which the church is affiliated with. Affiliation implies support. There are many of Fundamentalist like convictions who would never join a church so affiliated. There are many Conservative Evangelicals, and moderates, who would not join churches so affiliated.

I rarely read David Cloud. I would not have been aware of this statement of his except for the referral here on SI. I am thankful for this being pointed out. His statement regarding the affiliations of Mark Dever through the church he Pastors is not a twisting of facts. The affiliation is true and can be verified on the Regional website. The regionals affiliations are also factual. In terms of Baptist church organizations this is a direct line affiliation in ministry.

Before Mark Dever writes another book or preaches another sermon he should put any convictions into action and endeavor to lead his church out of this DC Regional. This would be honoring to Christ.

However, by remaining in such ministry affiliation they support heresy and Gospel indifferentism.

The reality is that if a person joined the Capitol hill Baptist Church they become affiliated through the church and regional with both the ABC and PBC. They become affiliated with the church and through the church to that which the church is affiliated with. Affiliation implies support. There are many of Fundamentalist like convictions who would never join a church so affiliated. There are many Conservative Evangelicals, and moderates, who would not join churches so affiliated.

I realize I am your junior. And I respect your different take on this. But that being said, this is exactly what I was alluding to in my post. People of my generation fail to see how being a non-paying member of an organization somehow makes one involved consciously in any and every affiliation of that organization. Especially when Dever lead the charge to prevent one dime from the national SBC fund making its way into the liberal DCBC coffers.

Before Mark Dever writes another book or preaches another sermon he should put any convictions into action and endeavor to lead his church out of this DC Regional. This would be honoring to Christ.

I’m glad you’re making Dever have to play by your rules in this too. Why isn’t his national charge to defund the DCBC enough to show he’s honoring Christ? There may be a good reason for staying in the membership listing of the DCBC since it doesn’t cost them anything. I don’t know, but to say he’s dishonoring Christ by staying in a formal organization made up of autonomous Baptist churches which can choose to contribute to the organization or not is a bit much.

Now you also say you are unhappy about Dever’s Calvinism. I suppose you wouldn’t have cooperated with someone like J. Gresham Machen either or the likes of Cornelious Van Til? Many of the original fundamentalists purposely stayed in their ecclesiastical organizations to try to help influence them for good. How do we know that isn’t Dever’s goal?

Bob Hayton said:

I realize I am your junior. And I respect your different take on this. But that being said, this is exactly what I was alluding to in my post. People of my generation fail to see how being a non-paying member of an organization somehow makes one involved consciously in any and every affiliation of that organization. Especially when Dever lead the charge to prevent one dime from the national SBC fund making its way into the liberal DCBC coffers.

Bob, This is a statement that I hope is not true. First, I will give credit to both Conservative Evangelicals and many Fundamentalist young adults for having sufficient conviction that I believe would make them see that separation from a Pastor or church affiliated with Apostasy is not alleviated by single actions that may be meritorious. The men who formed the CBA first formed the CB Missions in 1945 to keep funds from liberals in the AB missions. However, this was insufficient and it was necessary to actually break affiliation with Apostasy in 1947.

By your standards there would have been no Fundamentalist movement. Your position and argument here is classic 1950s and 1960s New Evangelical. You mention J. Gresham Machen. He considered liberalism a new religion and not Christianity at all. Any affiliation with a regional like the DC Convention or the ABC is the same as affiliation with a Buddhist group. This is the Fundamental of Fundamentalism. No approval of Apostasy and no common ministry with those who do. That is not some sort of secondary separation but the practice of watch care demanded by Acts 20:17-35. We avoid that which may give impression that no affiliation with Apostasy is only an option.

Bob also said:

Now you also say you are unhappy about Dever’s Calvinism. I suppose you wouldn’t have cooperated with someone like J. Gresham Machen either or the likes of Cornelius Van Til? Many of the original fundamentalists purposely stayed in their ecclesiastical organizations to try to help influence them for good. How do we know that isn’t Dever’s goal?

You allude to my age, interesting. Old men do tell old stories. I heard Van Til lecture for a week back at about 1964 or 5. He was on the Biola campus to lecture at Talbot and I was allowed to attend. Also at Northwest Baptist Seminary I took advanced Greek from Marchant A. King who graduated from Princeton in 1929. That was the year of the great split and founding of Westminster. King was taken by Machen to Westminster as an instructor in Greek and he was mentored by Machen. He told countless stories about Machen and the split and Reformed theology and Fundamentalism. Just a side bar.

Both Van Til and Machen broke all affiliation with liberalism and started a new Presbyterian denomination. They were good men. Van Til was invited to Talbot, a Dispensational Seminary that was non denominational but offered classes in different church polities. They offered Presbyterian church polity. The President of Biola at the time was Sam Sutherland who was a graduate of Princeton and was ordained a Presbyterian but had left the liberal leaning United Presbyterians. However, Baptist schools should shy away from a 5 point Reformed theology Pastor who publicly states that only 5 point Calvinists may preach at Capitol Hill Baptist Church.
That kind of hard militant Calvinism must be avoided by Dispensationalists who are often moderate Calvinists. A Reformed Baptist merely attempts to attach believers Baptism to English Puritanism as expressed in the Modified Westminster Confession called the London Baptist confession.

As I have said before, many who post on SI appear to possibly be New Evangelical by their stance but who post on SI under the camouflage of Fundamentalism as they look back and move on.

However, let us stay on subject. The issue here is not Calvinism. No Dispensationalist, Calvinist, Arminian, Wesleyan, or Charismatic should be involved with Buddhism or false Christianity called Christian liberalism.

BT -

You criticize Dever for not separating enough from a group he seems to have little contact with and yet you criticize him for keeping his pulpit pure from those that exalt the flesh. Is it not enough separation or too much?

Regarding Dispensationalism, I wondered how long it would take for that to be brought up…