What do you think?
Rate this book
The Calvinism Debate
125 pages. After 32 years of study, the author debates Calvinism in detail.
- GenresTheology
125 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2012
3 people are currently reading
12 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
December 10, 2021
I read this book as part of a personal discipline in which I periodically read the arguments of those whose views I oppose in order to protect myself from sinning by using straw men arguments.
I wish the author were just an ignorant quack who got no attention, but unfortunately, he is an ignorant quack who has a lot of influence in certain parts of Christianity. Destructive influence. Years ago, I was derided and sharply rebuked for saying that David Cloud is one of the most damaging influences in Fundamentalism in Australia. I am more sure of that statement now than I ever was. But don't take my word for it. By all means, read this book—or anything he's written—if you have the stomach for it.
With such strong views about the author on the table, it might seem unlikely that a substantive review is in the cards. But as always, I will seek to discipline myself to give as objective a review as I can.
This is a brief book at 125 pages. Ever more brief considering that long portions of text (as long as three pages in a row) are copied verbatim from other parts of the book. But really, the book is from pp. 1-50 and has two long articles appended and then a brief original appendix. The two articles are typical Cloud articles with a brief introduction followed by a long—very long—list of annotated verse which are presumably intended to make his point.
First, the typographical error to page ratio of this book is probably about 0.8:1. The logical fallacy to page ratio is about 1:1. At least.
Second, the single most important flaw in this book is that the author does not understand theology. Let me explain that. In the early pages, he refers to "man-made theologies" (p. 12). He then says "The Bible itself is the test of truth, not some man's systematic theology" (p. 13). He then goes on: "Calvinism goes beyond biblical statements in an attempt to systematize the mysteries of God" (p. 14). For the theologians who read this, you will understand that he's referring to the difference between biblical theology and systematic theology. Of course both of these are valid and important. But Cloud rejects systematic theology carte blanche. He actually describes systematic theology as "Calvin turn[ing] theology into philosophy" (p. 14). In other words, one of the things you learn on day one of most theology classes (the different kinds of theology), he has never heard of. He is completely ignorant of these most basic categories of theology. And then attacks systematic theology as somehow inherently wrong. Seemingly unaware that every person has a systematic theology. Including himself. So he is entirely un self-aware. If he thinks something is true, it is the plain words of Scripture. If he thinks it is false, it is man-made doctrine. There's no awareness of his own theology and how he reads that into everything he looks at. This plays out fatally throughout the book. At few points are his views not undermined by this fundamental flaw. He never bothered to learn what theology is.
Third, his opening statements argue that he is just an objective guy honestly trying to work through the issues and evidence on this difficult topic. By page twelve, I had come to the conclusion that he is incapable of accurately representing his opponent. There are easily a hundred instances of straw men in this book. Easily. Having tolerably accurately defined the five points of Calvinism, he then goes on to let his imagination define what a Calvinist believes from there out. The whole shebang. Calvinists don't believe in evangelism. Calvinists believe in reprobation. Calvinists do not believe in offering the gospel indiscriminately. Calvinists do not believe that whoever believes will be saved. Calvinists believe God refuses to let the unelect be saved. Calvinists believe that the offer of salvation is insincere. Calvinists don't believe people have a will. Calvinists don't believe people can choose. Calvinists believe people are like robots. On and on... nonsense upon nonsense. With no restraint. Or at least so I thought. I honestly kept trying to chalk it up to incompetence, not bad character. But he thwarted me repeatedly by demonstrating that he fully understood what he was doing when, for instance, he attacked a straw man. He's just dishonest. Or more stupid than I'm willing to believe. Does this seem harsh? It's toned down. A lot.
Fourth, an example of the above, and an independent problem. Cloud admits he read Iain Murray's Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism. But proceeds to treat all Calvinists as hyper-Calvinists. Again, I try to give him the benefit of the doubt that somehow he doesn't understand what he's doing. But he then adds an appendix in which he basically explains that he doesn't see any substantive difference between Calvinists and hyper-Calvinists. So his inability to grasp what it is he's opposing means that he is allowed to attack straw men systematically, and if that misleads his readers, well, so be it. It's perverse. It's dishonest. And it's destructive.
Fifth, because he has failed to actually understand what Calvinism holds, he fails to even offer arguments that can be taken seriously against it. I genuinely hoped he would give me some challenging points to make me wrestle a little. There's nothing here. The arguments are almost non-existent once you remove all the straw men and other fallacies.
In conclusion, this book is vapid drivel from the mind of a perverse, dishonest, anti-intellectual, revisionist, biblicist, extremist Fundamentalist. I'm sure there are books out there that can offer a reasoned challenge to Calvinism, but this isn't one of them.
I've come to the conclusion that David Cloud is the Proverbs fool. He's ignorant and stupid and lacks wisdom. But he's more than that. In Proverbs typology, he's a scoffer. He loves to mock. He mocks truth. He mocks goodness. And ultimately, I think, he mocks God.
I wish the author were just an ignorant quack who got no attention, but unfortunately, he is an ignorant quack who has a lot of influence in certain parts of Christianity. Destructive influence. Years ago, I was derided and sharply rebuked for saying that David Cloud is one of the most damaging influences in Fundamentalism in Australia. I am more sure of that statement now than I ever was. But don't take my word for it. By all means, read this book—or anything he's written—if you have the stomach for it.
With such strong views about the author on the table, it might seem unlikely that a substantive review is in the cards. But as always, I will seek to discipline myself to give as objective a review as I can.
This is a brief book at 125 pages. Ever more brief considering that long portions of text (as long as three pages in a row) are copied verbatim from other parts of the book. But really, the book is from pp. 1-50 and has two long articles appended and then a brief original appendix. The two articles are typical Cloud articles with a brief introduction followed by a long—very long—list of annotated verse which are presumably intended to make his point.
First, the typographical error to page ratio of this book is probably about 0.8:1. The logical fallacy to page ratio is about 1:1. At least.
Second, the single most important flaw in this book is that the author does not understand theology. Let me explain that. In the early pages, he refers to "man-made theologies" (p. 12). He then says "The Bible itself is the test of truth, not some man's systematic theology" (p. 13). He then goes on: "Calvinism goes beyond biblical statements in an attempt to systematize the mysteries of God" (p. 14). For the theologians who read this, you will understand that he's referring to the difference between biblical theology and systematic theology. Of course both of these are valid and important. But Cloud rejects systematic theology carte blanche. He actually describes systematic theology as "Calvin turn[ing] theology into philosophy" (p. 14). In other words, one of the things you learn on day one of most theology classes (the different kinds of theology), he has never heard of. He is completely ignorant of these most basic categories of theology. And then attacks systematic theology as somehow inherently wrong. Seemingly unaware that every person has a systematic theology. Including himself. So he is entirely un self-aware. If he thinks something is true, it is the plain words of Scripture. If he thinks it is false, it is man-made doctrine. There's no awareness of his own theology and how he reads that into everything he looks at. This plays out fatally throughout the book. At few points are his views not undermined by this fundamental flaw. He never bothered to learn what theology is.
Third, his opening statements argue that he is just an objective guy honestly trying to work through the issues and evidence on this difficult topic. By page twelve, I had come to the conclusion that he is incapable of accurately representing his opponent. There are easily a hundred instances of straw men in this book. Easily. Having tolerably accurately defined the five points of Calvinism, he then goes on to let his imagination define what a Calvinist believes from there out. The whole shebang. Calvinists don't believe in evangelism. Calvinists believe in reprobation. Calvinists do not believe in offering the gospel indiscriminately. Calvinists do not believe that whoever believes will be saved. Calvinists believe God refuses to let the unelect be saved. Calvinists believe that the offer of salvation is insincere. Calvinists don't believe people have a will. Calvinists don't believe people can choose. Calvinists believe people are like robots. On and on... nonsense upon nonsense. With no restraint. Or at least so I thought. I honestly kept trying to chalk it up to incompetence, not bad character. But he thwarted me repeatedly by demonstrating that he fully understood what he was doing when, for instance, he attacked a straw man. He's just dishonest. Or more stupid than I'm willing to believe. Does this seem harsh? It's toned down. A lot.
Fourth, an example of the above, and an independent problem. Cloud admits he read Iain Murray's Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism. But proceeds to treat all Calvinists as hyper-Calvinists. Again, I try to give him the benefit of the doubt that somehow he doesn't understand what he's doing. But he then adds an appendix in which he basically explains that he doesn't see any substantive difference between Calvinists and hyper-Calvinists. So his inability to grasp what it is he's opposing means that he is allowed to attack straw men systematically, and if that misleads his readers, well, so be it. It's perverse. It's dishonest. And it's destructive.
Fifth, because he has failed to actually understand what Calvinism holds, he fails to even offer arguments that can be taken seriously against it. I genuinely hoped he would give me some challenging points to make me wrestle a little. There's nothing here. The arguments are almost non-existent once you remove all the straw men and other fallacies.
In conclusion, this book is vapid drivel from the mind of a perverse, dishonest, anti-intellectual, revisionist, biblicist, extremist Fundamentalist. I'm sure there are books out there that can offer a reasoned challenge to Calvinism, but this isn't one of them.
I've come to the conclusion that David Cloud is the Proverbs fool. He's ignorant and stupid and lacks wisdom. But he's more than that. In Proverbs typology, he's a scoffer. He loves to mock. He mocks truth. He mocks goodness. And ultimately, I think, he mocks God.
April 21, 2025
Important book, but impossible to recommend.
PROS
+ Overall great discernment, and a valuable and important book.
+ Mostly impeccable investigation.
+ Very few problematic endorsements.
CONS
- While he has generally an opposing attitude towards Calvinism (which is good), he rather admired and endorsed Spurgeon (same as other KJV-only promoters such as Ray Yungen who called him a 'luminary') rather than employing a proper discernment and to classify him as a highly problematic teacher. Spurgeon was not the good guy of Calvinism as painted by Cloud, he was the 'Angel of Light' of Calvinism, the one who best sold it by creating a hybrid between the Bible and Calvinism, by adding the evangelistic element to Calvinism. This is precisely what made him more effective and actually more dangerous. In short, he was evil and not the good guy, no matter the many good things he taught.
- Quote: "Dr. Jeffrey Khoo, a Presbyterian Calvinist and a staunch defender of the Greek Received Text and the King James Bible and a man that I hold in high esteem ..."
- Very problematic stance on 'Progressive Salvation', calling it effectively a 'heresy'. The author does repeat, but not really define what he means with 'Progressive Salvation' (a term rather only found in KJV circles), while teaching a Single-Tense-Salvation (which I call at least problematic). It should be well known that Salvation is not done within a blink of an eye and is indeed a life-long process, although Past Salvation (born again) is obviously the most important moment.
I suspect that his adherence to the KJV only, as he hinted at in the beginning of the book (and to my surprise defended by him at length in a separate book published by him; he endorses also Dave Hunt who is KJV only, and Lighthouse Trails which is KJV-only-friendly), brought him on that wrong and highly divisive path, although Cloud does generally do a great discernment and work on his website.
The English KJV translation has a lot of strengths, but does contain at least 2 serious translation errors when rendering in 1Cor 1:18 and 2Cor 2:15 (2x sozomenois, verb participle/passive/dative/plural = the 'ones-being-saved', clearly progressive!) into a Passive Indicative ('are saved' = closed action).
See https://scripture4all.org/OnlineInter...
Sadly most English Bible translations neglect a proper rendering of the Participle and consider it as secondary. But in times of Interlinear Bibles we have no excuses anymore even for those who do not know Greek, and can easily verify such deficiencies in translations, which in turn can lead to entire theologies as the KJV-only brings it to an extreme in this case.
- He erroneously teaches that salvation is 100% of THEOS, which goes against so many parts of Scripture, where the role of the believer in the process of salvation is made clear.
What actually saves a person (Past Salvation) is THEOS' grace, love, mercy and resurrection, together with our hearing of the Word, believing in IESOUS and His resurrection, having faith, repenting from being a sinner and confessing with your mouth, usually expressed in an immediate baptism. Present Salvation further includes the regular taking of communion, denying of yourself, putting everything else second to THEOS, obedience & discipline, growing of faith, making disciples and becoming holy.
You see? There is no such thing as salvation being 100% of THEOS.
- He erroneously teaches that faith does not consist of works. But James made it very clear that faith without Works (of love, not of the Law; he does nowhere recognize this important distinction) is dead. Faith and good works cannot be separated and it is highly misleading and reactionary to Calvinism to try to separate the two.
- In general, some of his positions are reactionary to Calvinism and not primarily defined by Scripture. It feels as written under emotions and the need to defend oneself, rather than with a sober view.
- The book is in (small) parts repetitive, with several times the exact same passages being repeated in the book.
- He added in the addendum dozens of Bible verses, which he re-wrote in Calvinistic terms. This is a highly problematic, if not heretical practice, and at some point the HOLY SPIRIT made me stop listening to those verses. It would have been maybe ok to include 1 or 2 verses, saying how the Calvinist would understand those. But to re-translate dozens of Bible verses into the 'Calvinist Standard Version', is rather seen by THEOS as heresy itself, no matter the good intentions. It is not expedieent to twist THEOS' Word in order to oppose transgressors of the Word. The truth will set them free, not the twisting of the truth.
QUOTES OF THE BOOK
"Every Calvinist believes he has the liberty to decide what kind of Calvinist he will be, how many 'points' he will accept. One list of Calvinists names nine types: total hyper-Calvinist, partial hyper-Calvinist, ultra-high Calvinist, regular high Calvinist, moderate Calvinist, lower moderate Calvinist, lower Calvinist, lowest Calvinist, and Amyraldism (4 point Calvinist).
To understand the difference, you must understand compatibilism, lapsarianism, supralapsarianism, infralapsarianism, active reprobation, common grace, non-salvific love, single and double predestination and soft forms of double predestination."
"The old Reformed men believed that Rome is the great whore of Revelation 17, drunken with the blood of the martyrs, but the new Reformed have ecumenical relationships with Rome, or at least are open to it. On the TGC web page 'Should Christians Be Ecumenical', we find the following: 'Can evangelicals and Catholics truly be together? ... Jesus’ prayer for unity in the Body obligates me to see the ecumenical task as important for Christianity'. "
PROS
+ Overall great discernment, and a valuable and important book.
+ Mostly impeccable investigation.
+ Very few problematic endorsements.
CONS
- While he has generally an opposing attitude towards Calvinism (which is good), he rather admired and endorsed Spurgeon (same as other KJV-only promoters such as Ray Yungen who called him a 'luminary') rather than employing a proper discernment and to classify him as a highly problematic teacher. Spurgeon was not the good guy of Calvinism as painted by Cloud, he was the 'Angel of Light' of Calvinism, the one who best sold it by creating a hybrid between the Bible and Calvinism, by adding the evangelistic element to Calvinism. This is precisely what made him more effective and actually more dangerous. In short, he was evil and not the good guy, no matter the many good things he taught.
- Quote: "Dr. Jeffrey Khoo, a Presbyterian Calvinist and a staunch defender of the Greek Received Text and the King James Bible and a man that I hold in high esteem ..."
- Very problematic stance on 'Progressive Salvation', calling it effectively a 'heresy'. The author does repeat, but not really define what he means with 'Progressive Salvation' (a term rather only found in KJV circles), while teaching a Single-Tense-Salvation (which I call at least problematic). It should be well known that Salvation is not done within a blink of an eye and is indeed a life-long process, although Past Salvation (born again) is obviously the most important moment.
I suspect that his adherence to the KJV only, as he hinted at in the beginning of the book (and to my surprise defended by him at length in a separate book published by him; he endorses also Dave Hunt who is KJV only, and Lighthouse Trails which is KJV-only-friendly), brought him on that wrong and highly divisive path, although Cloud does generally do a great discernment and work on his website.
The English KJV translation has a lot of strengths, but does contain at least 2 serious translation errors when rendering in 1Cor 1:18 and 2Cor 2:15 (2x sozomenois, verb participle/passive/dative/plural = the 'ones-being-saved', clearly progressive!) into a Passive Indicative ('are saved' = closed action).
See https://scripture4all.org/OnlineInter...
Sadly most English Bible translations neglect a proper rendering of the Participle and consider it as secondary. But in times of Interlinear Bibles we have no excuses anymore even for those who do not know Greek, and can easily verify such deficiencies in translations, which in turn can lead to entire theologies as the KJV-only brings it to an extreme in this case.
- He erroneously teaches that salvation is 100% of THEOS, which goes against so many parts of Scripture, where the role of the believer in the process of salvation is made clear.
What actually saves a person (Past Salvation) is THEOS' grace, love, mercy and resurrection, together with our hearing of the Word, believing in IESOUS and His resurrection, having faith, repenting from being a sinner and confessing with your mouth, usually expressed in an immediate baptism. Present Salvation further includes the regular taking of communion, denying of yourself, putting everything else second to THEOS, obedience & discipline, growing of faith, making disciples and becoming holy.
You see? There is no such thing as salvation being 100% of THEOS.
- He erroneously teaches that faith does not consist of works. But James made it very clear that faith without Works (of love, not of the Law; he does nowhere recognize this important distinction) is dead. Faith and good works cannot be separated and it is highly misleading and reactionary to Calvinism to try to separate the two.
- In general, some of his positions are reactionary to Calvinism and not primarily defined by Scripture. It feels as written under emotions and the need to defend oneself, rather than with a sober view.
- The book is in (small) parts repetitive, with several times the exact same passages being repeated in the book.
- He added in the addendum dozens of Bible verses, which he re-wrote in Calvinistic terms. This is a highly problematic, if not heretical practice, and at some point the HOLY SPIRIT made me stop listening to those verses. It would have been maybe ok to include 1 or 2 verses, saying how the Calvinist would understand those. But to re-translate dozens of Bible verses into the 'Calvinist Standard Version', is rather seen by THEOS as heresy itself, no matter the good intentions. It is not expedieent to twist THEOS' Word in order to oppose transgressors of the Word. The truth will set them free, not the twisting of the truth.
QUOTES OF THE BOOK
"Every Calvinist believes he has the liberty to decide what kind of Calvinist he will be, how many 'points' he will accept. One list of Calvinists names nine types: total hyper-Calvinist, partial hyper-Calvinist, ultra-high Calvinist, regular high Calvinist, moderate Calvinist, lower moderate Calvinist, lower Calvinist, lowest Calvinist, and Amyraldism (4 point Calvinist).
To understand the difference, you must understand compatibilism, lapsarianism, supralapsarianism, infralapsarianism, active reprobation, common grace, non-salvific love, single and double predestination and soft forms of double predestination."
"The old Reformed men believed that Rome is the great whore of Revelation 17, drunken with the blood of the martyrs, but the new Reformed have ecumenical relationships with Rome, or at least are open to it. On the TGC web page 'Should Christians Be Ecumenical', we find the following: 'Can evangelicals and Catholics truly be together? ... Jesus’ prayer for unity in the Body obligates me to see the ecumenical task as important for Christianity'. "
November 14, 2022
An excellent summary of why Calvinism is wrong in so many aspects. The author also references other, more comprehensive books on the subject such as Dave Hunt's "What Love Is This?" (which I have also read and provided a review thereon).
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews