# Great Theologians that have changed their minds



## Pergamum (Jul 17, 2009)

Who are some theologians whose theology has changed between their earlier writings and later writings? And what was the effect of those changes.

John Owen?

AW Pink?

I also heard Isaac Watts uttered some doubts about the Trinity?


Anyone know more about these or others, what they changed to, and why they changed?


----------



## Herald (Jul 17, 2009)

I'm not of the veracity of this information, but hasn't R. C. Sproul vascilated on his eschatology?


----------



## ADKing (Jul 17, 2009)

I think Augustine is a classic example. His Retractions come to mind.


----------



## sastark (Jul 17, 2009)

John Calvin.

In his younger years he wrote against "lutheranism" (meaning the Protestant theology of his day), only to be saved by the grace of God.


----------



## AThornquist (Jul 17, 2009)

John MacArthur wasn't a Calvinist at first. He made the change in the late 80's _I think_.

-----Added 7/17/2009 at 02:32:49 EST-----



Herald said:


> I'm not of the veracity of this information, but hasn't R. C. Sproul vascilated on his eschatology?



He has also changed in what he believes about creation.


----------



## Joseph Scibbe (Jul 17, 2009)

Well, all theologians have had their mids changed....... I digress.


----------



## Wayne (Jul 17, 2009)

Those theologians who retreat from sound theology are by definition not great theologians: Clark Pinnock, as one example, adopting an openness view.

On the other hand, J. Gresham Machen came under the influence of Wilhelm Herrmann and was quite taken with his views for a time, but finally worked free from that error:



> His inaugural address makes it abundantly clear that the clouds had lifted and Machen had resolved the doubts that had bedevilled him ever since his time in Germany. ‘History and faith’ is thus a public reply to Herrmann and the liberal perspective on history and the reliability of Scripture.
> 
> (Evangelical Times)


----------



## Sven (Jul 17, 2009)

The Apostle Paul. Actually, he had his mind changed for him.


----------



## Skyler (Jul 17, 2009)

I think when the OP says "changed their minds" it refers to theologians whose position on a certain doctrine changed at some point after their conversion. Of course their minds were changed when they were converted!


----------



## Joseph Scibbe (Jul 17, 2009)

Skyler said:


> I think when the OP says "changed their minds" it refers to theologians whose position on a certain doctrine changed at some point after their conversion. Of course their minds were changed when they were converted!



I was aware what the poster was asking, I just could not resist the urge at my comment.


----------



## Wayne (Jul 17, 2009)

"Learn to resist those urges," he counseled (not following his own advice).


----------



## Skyler (Jul 17, 2009)

Wayne said:


> "Learn to resist those urges," he counseled (not following his own advice).



That sounds like a quote.


----------



## Reformed Thomist (Jul 17, 2009)

Early on in his career Thomas Aquinas stated that God has no other essence or nature than being, that He is being in all its purity, and that creatures receive being as a participation of the Divine being, their essences limiting the degree of this participation -- but only much later on in his career did he clarify that there is a real composition in creatures between their being and their essence or that these two are really distinct!


----------



## Scott1 (Jul 17, 2009)

Herald said:


> I'm not of the veracity of this information, but hasn't R. C. Sproul vascilated on his eschatology?



The most circulated story in relation to this is that at one of Dr. Sproul's conferences, someone said they had read his book, _The Last Days according to Jesus_ and could not tell what millennial position he held- was it amillennial, postmillenial, historical premillennial, or modern dispensational premillennial.

Dr. Sproul is reported to have laughed and said, "That's because there are strengths and weaknesses in each position. Only one thing I am certain of- it's not the fourth one."

I don't think so much a change of mind as an honest attempt to sort this difficult area out biblically.


----------



## Repre5entYHWH (Jul 17, 2009)

Scott1 said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not of the veracity of this information, but hasn't R. C. Sproul vascilated on his eschatology?
> ...



i have heard sproul say that his view on eschatology is like the weather in Florida in that it is always changing.


----------



## christianhope (Jul 17, 2009)

Patrick Fairbairn changed his stance toward the interpretation of prophecy, moving from premill to postmill, resulting in his book "the interpretation of prophecy"


----------



## steven-nemes (Jul 17, 2009)

Any stories of softy "God loves trees and puppies" unitarian universalists who became staunch and strict no-common-grace Calvinists?


----------



## ChristianHedonist (Jul 17, 2009)

I have heard something along the lines that Jonathan Edwards changed his view on church government from Congregationalism to Presbyterianism. I'm not certain if this is correct though.


----------



## Wayne (Jul 17, 2009)

Dan:

That story about Edwards is based on an account by Archibald Alexander, retold by R.J. Breckinridge in _The Presbyterian_ newspaper, circa 1837.

I'll see if I can't get the content online--it would make a nice piece to post on my blog.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 17, 2009)

What's the deal with AW Pink. His earlier and later editions of the same books differed. Did the editors tamper?


----------



## Rich Koster (Jul 17, 2009)

Benny Hinn........or did he really start out that far in left field?


----------



## Jesus is my friend (Jul 17, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> What's the deal with AW Pink. His earlier and later editions of the same books differed. Did the editors tamper?



Pink's Sovereignty which to me brought to Reformed Theology,is available in primarily two editions currently,Baker Books (American-This is original w/chapter on Reprobation included-is the one to get) and Banner of Truth (British-strangely edited without this chapter).This new version is just like the Baker Books edition and is very nice


Amazon.com: The Sovereignty of God: Arthur W. Pink: Books
Please check out this thread as Brother Hippo and others explained this in great depth


http://www.puritanboard.com/f48/pinks-sovereignty-god-development-38897/


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jul 17, 2009)

Kauffeld said:


> Patrick Fairbairn changed his stance toward the interpretation of prophecy, moving from premill to postmill, resulting in his book "the interpretation of prophecy"



He also originally believed in a later mass conversion of the Jews and had an "irrefutable" argument for it in a lecture entitled _The Future Prospects of the Jews_, but later rejected that view and argued against it in the Interpretation of Prophecy in a Chapter named _The Prophetical Future of the Jewish people_ arguing that the OT promises were fulfilled in the Church. Later a book was compiled by Albertus Pieters with both articles together entitled _The Prophetic Prospects of the Jews_ and sub-titled _Fairbairn vs. Fairbairn_. Fun reading.


----------



## Mark Hettler (Jul 17, 2009)

Rich Koster said:


> Benny Hinn........or did he really start out that far in left field?



I don't think his theology changed, more like developed or expanded - he started out with three persons in the Godhead and worked his way up to nine.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jul 17, 2009)

Augustine changed his mind about some very important things.


----------



## brandonadams (Jul 17, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> What's the deal with AW Pink. His earlier and later editions of the same books differed. Did the editors tamper?



Aside from the editing of his "Sovereignty of God" (which he did not edit - but someone took the liberty of guessing after his death that he had changed his mind and edited it for him), he was a dispensationalist prior to writing a book against dispensationalism.


----------



## py3ak (Jul 17, 2009)

Thomas Goodwin changed his mind about eschatology, when his expectations of certain great events were rather strikingly not fulfilled.


----------



## Iconoclast (Jul 18, 2009)

A.W. Pink was originally dispensational,but studied himself past it.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jul 18, 2009)

steven-nemes said:


> Any stories of softy "God loves trees and puppies" unitarian universalists who became staunch and strict no-common-grace Calvinists?



I don't know about "no-common-grace" Calvinists, but Thomas Chalmers and Abraham Kuyper were both converted while they were pastoring congregations and became stout defenders of the Reformed faith.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 18, 2009)

What about Owen? I keep hearing that he turned congregational, but I do not know if he merely developed more Presbyterian later on or at what point this was that he seeemed to favor congregationalism?


----------



## timmopussycat (Jul 18, 2009)

Rich Koster said:


> Benny Hinn........or did he really start out that far in left field?



Hinn either started out or spent some of the early days of his Christian profession in the group through which I later came to Christ. I didn't know him, he left a bit before I got there, but some who did said that he had too much of an eye for the miraculous and not enough for the teaching of Scripture.


----------



## DMcFadden (Jul 18, 2009)

R.C. Sproul was an old earth creationist until Kelly's arguments won him over to YEC.

MacArthur was a standard issue dispensationalist for whom 5pt Calvinism was a "change."

Not a "great theologian," but my eschatology began as dispi premillennial in high school, historic premill in college onward, and amil now.

Driscoll (also not a great "theologian") was fairly standard issue "emergent" until his Calvinism got the better of him.

I know you don't want to cite the backwards "progress" crossing the Rubicon, etc . . . but my old prof, Bob Gundry, started out as a standard issue dispi, moved to a strongly redactional viewpoint, and has embraced much of the NPP.

Schreiner shifted from Amil to Historic premil fairly recently.

A high percentage of graduates of Moody Bible Institute that end up enrolling at Gordon Conwell stay dispi for about 2 nanoseconds before embracing the doctrines of grace.

Fred Malone is . . . well . . . no, he's not . . . yes he is . . . what day is this anyway?


----------



## py3ak (Jul 18, 2009)

Owen's view changed with regard to the question whether God could have dealt with sin in some way other than through the death of Christ; in the absence of documentation, I tend to take rumors of a theoretical departure from congregationalism as Presbyterian wish-fulfillment dreams. But maybe there's some good sources out there.


----------



## Prufrock (Jul 18, 2009)

Wayne, here is a thread which quotes the Edwards/presbyterian information. Ironically, your name is mentioned therein. The first and third posts are pertinent.


----------



## Cranmer1959 (Jul 18, 2009)

*Common Grace???*



Puritan Sailor said:


> steven-nemes said:
> 
> 
> > Any stories of softy "God loves trees and puppies" unitarian universalists who became staunch and strict no-common-grace Calvinists?
> ...



The dispute between the Christian Reformed Church and the Protestant Reformed Church is a legitimate one which is often glossed over by neo-Calvinists. While I do think the PRC is a bit legalistic on things like divorce and remarriage, etc., the "three points of common grace" were never heard of before Abraham Kuyper and Herman Bavinck came along.

Also, I think it is a bit overboard to say that those who reject common grace are "hyper-Calvinists." I have yet to met one in person. However, I would conceded that some of the less educated members and ministers in the small Primitive Baptist denomination might fall into that category. The Protestant Reformed Church is most certainly not "hyper-Calvinist." While that ad hominem does seem to preach to the choir for those who favor the doctrine of common grace, I tend to see it as sidestepping the issue. Essentially, "common grace" is a capitulation to Arminian theology. One cannot have it both ways. Either the dual decrees to election and reprobation are absolute, or they are not. 

That being said, even Loraine Boettner, who accepted the common grace view, pointed out in his book on Predestination that common grace does not change the eternal decree for reprobation one bit. The non-elect are passed over and left to destruction.

Calvin's Institutes nowhere explicitly or implicitly teach any such doctrine as "common grace." In fact, Calvin goes out of his way to show that such "blessings" are actually a curse to the reprobate because they refuse to acknowledge and glorify God as the source of all their many natural abilities and natural gifts, which are essentially remnants of the divine image and likeness given to Adam prior to the fall. The fall brought a corruption of the image but not a total annihilation of the divine image and likeness. Thus, there is no need to appeal to "common grace" to explain why there is civilization, government, science and arts. These are result of the divine image, not "common grace."


----------



## Wayne (Jul 18, 2009)

Thank you, Paul. That saves a bit of work!

Dan: See Prufrock's link.


----------



## Mark Hettler (Jul 18, 2009)

C.J. Mahaney is not exactly in the category of great theologian, but he went from hyper-charismatic rah-rah superficiality to a Reformed position, and took an entire denomination with him. Regardless of what one thinks of his continuationism or Soverign Grace Ministries' ecclesiology, it was still a huge shift.


----------

