Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

David Cloud


Anon

Recommended Posts

  • Administrators

I don't totally agree with the secondary separation, either.  And I agree that a para-church organization would not be the same as a church. But, still - the trumpet needs to be sounded so folks understand the background of said para-church organization and its founder(s).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I don't totally agree with the secondary separation, either.  And I agree that a para-church organization would not be the same as a church. But, still - the trumpet needs to be sounded so folks understand the background of said para-church organization and its founder(s).

 

Who is David Cloud's primary audience?  Is it pastors, or laypeople?

 

If pastors, the pastors should be able to figure out what organizations are okay based on doctrine alone.

 

If laypeople, then it isn't David Cloud's jOB to name names...it's their pastor's jOB to name what names God would have him name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Who is David Cloud's primary audience?  Is it pastors, or laypeople?

 

If pastors, the pastors should be able to figure out what organizations are okay based on doctrine alone.

 

If laypeople, then it isn't David Cloud's jOB to name names...it's their pastor's jOB to name what names God would have him name.

It would primarily be pastors (O Timothy was originally written for pastors), although his books are for everyone.

 

Pastors should be able to figure it out. Yep.  But just as I believe God has given Ken Ham a ministry, so, too, has he given David Cloud one.  Both are important and efficacious, IMO.  And why can't he name names? Where is it in scripture that each layperson is only to get any information from their pastor?  That, to me, is an over-reaction and one which leads to the dictator-style attitude so prevalent in too many churches.

 

If, as you say, pastors should be the ones to name names, to figure out organizations, etc., that would also apply to Ken Ham...his ministry and the museum would be moot to churches because pastors should be the ones to teach doctrine to their people. SWIM?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I guess.  I'm just tired of the negativity I guess.   I feel that there is a time to name names, and a time to just let other people be independent.   I guess we got a sour taste when he called out Dr. Mike Allison, who everyone knows is an amazing pastor.    If that is the sort of guy he calls out publicly, then I honestly lost some respect as far as where he draws the line as far as who he criticizes. 

 

And I greatly respect Ken Ham's ministry as well.

 

In my opinion, the greatest danger to our churches right now is not Ken Ham, and it is not West Coast Baptist College.  It is Casting Crowns, it is other various Christian rock groups, and it is the apathy and modernization that is influencing the church today.   I think David Cloud needs to focus on those on the outside trying to get INTO our churches, rather than those minding their own busineses and their own ministry.  Ken Ham is not trying to overthrow or change anyone's ministry, thus he is NOT a danger.

 

The dangers that were mentioned in the church age in Scripture were people who were actively trying to hurt or destroy the church, or change the church.  Ken Ham is not trying to do that.   So thus he is not a valid danger to need to speak about IMO.

 

There are dangerous music groups trying to get into our churches, and compromising colleges (not Baptist) that take our churches' kids (like Liberty U) and other dangers who ARE trying to get into our churches and influence our families.  To me, that is valid to warn against.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

I agree mostly...but Ken's neo-evangelicalism CAN be dangerous to our churches.  I, like you, respect Ken Ham's work.  But, even if Ken is not trying to get into churches, he actually is - just as CCM is. Lack of separation is honestly a serious thing now.

 

I understand your view, and I, too, like Pastor Allison.  But is he perfect?  Are we to only call out those with whom we don't align doctrinally? It's okay to point out the error of the likes of Joel Osteen and Billy Graham, but not one of our own?  Another person would say that at least DCloud is consistent - calling out whomever.  SWIM?

 

I'm not thrilled with negativity, either. But negativity is needed to balance things out. The Bible is both positive and negative.  We should be, too. An argument could be made by some that DC is always negative. But I've heard him preach, and he's not. I'm honestly not trying to defend him. As I said before, I don't always agree with him.  But he is consistent.

 

 

 

There are dangerous music groups trying to get into our churches, and compromising colleges (not Baptist) that take our churches' kids (like Liberty U) and other dangers who ARE trying to get into our churches and influence our families.  To me, that is valid to warn against.  Even here, though, there is disagreement - from members here on BO as well as others. I agree that the warning is valid...but some folks think it's meddling.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I agree mostly...but Ken's neo-evangelicalism CAN be dangerous to our churches.  I, like you, respect Ken Ham's work.  But, even if Ken is not trying to get into churches, he actually is - just as CCM is. Lack of separation is honestly a serious thing now.

 

I understand your view, and I, too, like Pastor Allison.  But is he perfect?  Are we to only call out those with whom we don't align doctrinally? It's okay to point out the error of the likes of Joel Osteen and Billy Graham, but not one of our own?  Another person would say that at least DCloud is consistent - calling out whomever.  SWIM?

 

I'm not thrilled with negativity, either. But negativity is needed to balance things out. The Bible is both positive and negative.  We should be, too. An argument could be made by some that DC is always negative. But I've heard him preach, and he's not. I'm honestly not trying to defend him. As I said before, I don't always agree with him.  But he is consistent.

 

 

I think that Mike Allison would be an example of an Independent Baptist Church pastor whom it's no business of anyone else to criticize, because they are independent....but I see what you are saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Again, to a point I would agree...but his church does have a college. Colleges that are operated by churches and that bring in students from places other than that particular church again open themselves to public criticism.  I'm not justifying DC, because I don't know what he said about Bro. Allison - not that I need to know - but if it's true, where's the prOBlem?   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Acts 20:28 (KJV) 28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

Acts 20:29 (KJV) 29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

Acts 20:30 (KJV) 30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

Paul warned of wolves in the midst of the congregation scattering the flock. He also warned that some wolves would be Elders of the Church.

Anyone who is in any position, whether leaders or laity, is subject to error. We must always be vigilant, because the devil walks about seeking whom he may devour.

David Cloud is not above error himself. He, like us, is in a body subject to sin and sinful passions. He does err from time to time. And, being public, will be called on error when someone catches it.

I have emailed him in the past and received answers that were good as well as answers that were questionable. I have questioned a few of his articles myself, presenting clear Scripture as to why I saw him to be in error.

Funny thing though, whenever I pointed out his error, he always rejected it, even though Scripture revealed him to be wrong. Yes, a watchman on the wall is good. But that watchman should not put his own beliefs above the authority of Scripture.

Was Cloud wrong in his pointing out that Ham went to a CCM concert? Maybe, maybe not. Did he first go to Ham and speak with him? Or did he just begin to point fingers?

If the latter, then he was wrong.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

 

Funny thing though, whenever I pointed out his error, he always rejected it, even though Scripture revealed him to be wrong. Yes, a watchman on the wall is good. But that watchman should not put his own beliefs above the authority of Scripture.

 

 

This happened to my husband as well.  He is not known to admit his own mistakes, though he has no prOBlem pointing out the mistakes of others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

This happened to my husband as well.  He is not known to admit his own mistakes, though he has no prOBlem pointing out the mistakes of others.

I think we can all be accused of this.  :biggrin:  He believes firmly in what he believes scripture says, just as your hubby does, as well as SFIC does.  As has been proven by various threads throughout the years, all of us believe what we believe and are not easily swayed to change our thought or even to admit we might be wrong.  :nuts:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Ken Ham doesn't claim to be IFB. I don't see any point in trying to hold him to IFB standards. Everyone knows that is a new evangelical ministry - and a very good one, as those go - take it or leave it, as you choose.

This business about having to have a written statement against Billy Graham seems rather extreme. I would hope that a good IFB church would warn against him - but having it in the doctrinal statement? I think it would be better to remind people of the principles involved in separation rather than trying to dictate a particular form of the exercise thereof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Good post, Salyan.

 

I think also it can be confusing.  For instance, last year in my Science class at the school, I used some of Ken Ham's material for Science.   But if the students had been "warned" against him, they could have been confused as to why I would use his materials.

 

I wouldn't use Billy Graham's material in school, but I would use Ken Ham's, because it's educational.   We have to be careful not to lump everyone into the same box.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Ken Ham doesn't claim to be IFB. I don't see any point in trying to hold him to IFB standards. Everyone knows that is a new evangelical ministry - and a very good one, as those go - take it or leave it, as you choose.

This business about having to have a written statement against Billy Graham seems rather extreme. I would hope that a good IFB church would warn against him - but having it in the doctrinal statement? I think it would be better to remind people of the principles involved in separation rather than trying to dictate a particular form of the exercise thereof.

I agree.  One need not have Billy Graham in one's doctrinal statement. 

Think about it.  If Billy Graham repents of his error, then what?  Re-write the doctrinal statement?  Leave Billy in, but move him in to the "Preachers We Idolize" category?

Yes, congregations should be warned of error.  Paul consistently did that, as seen in his words to the Elders at Ephesus.  But to put the names of those in some form of doctrinal error in the Church doctrinal statement is carrying it to the extreme.  One would have to write every spiritual leader's name in the doctrinal statement, because none are perfect.  We all have our faults.

Edited by Standing Firm In Christ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Too be fair, unless I misread it, what was quoted didn't say that one must have anti-BG stuff in one's doctrinal statement...He did say something about denouncing BG but several folk here have mentioned it as having been stated as necessary to be in one's doctrinal statement.  'Issuing a statement' is not the same thing as having it in one's doctrinal statement.  Just sayin'...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Too be fair, unless I misread it, what was quoted didn't say that one must have anti-BG stuff in one's doctrinal statement...He did say something about denouncing BG but several folk here have mentioned it as having been stated as necessary to be in one's doctrinal statement.  'Issuing a statement' is not the same thing as having it in one's doctrinal statement.  Just sayin'...

 

 

 

 

Fourth, when has that ministry taken a stand against Billy Graham and all of the evil he has done through his New Evangelical philosophy?

 

 

Not in the statement, per se, but basically if Ken Ham never said "Billy Graham is evil" then we shouldn't associate with him.  Huh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...