Enns claims to be a Calvinist but he is also a theological Progressive. He purports the Genesis myth theory.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Non-Calvinist Theologians (resurrected thread)
- Thread starter thatbrian
- Start date
So he's a non-traditional Calvinist (soteriologically he's a Calvinist but he departs from traditional belief in other areas)?
He holds the same viewpoint as CS lewis did then?
Depends on who you ask lol
I’d say that C.S. Lewis, Gordon Fee, Adam Clarke, Thomas Helwys, John Wycliffe, Vincent Taylor, G.K. Chesterton, Søren Kierkegaard, and Richard Hays should be widely known.
If we count Karl Barth and N.T. Wright, we could add them to the popular list as well. But I suppose it depends on one's tradition or if they read outside their tradition.
Joel.alexander
Member
Norman Geisler holds to a more balanced view.
Dr. Grant C. Richison (http://versebyversecommentary.com/) is another one.
Dr. Grant C. Richison (http://versebyversecommentary.com/) is another one.
Non-traditional would be putting it mildly. Research the Genesis myth controversy and you will know why I am not an Enns fan.
One big difference between the two is that Lewis never passed himself off as a theologian proper.
Lewis and Chesterton were not theologians; they were apologists.
You are mistaken. He was indeed an ardent Calvinist. Whitefield, William Jay and Spurgeon all regarded his commentary very highly as a fellow Calvinist.
Look at his treatment of John 10:26 and Isaiah 53 for starters.
Rippon, Matthew Henry's view has been documented in recent scholarship:
The Extent of the Atonement (Broadman & Holman, 2016)
The Gospel According to Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry Conference (2014)
I'm afraid I'm not impressed with either of those sources. The first link seems to think that anyone who is not John Gill must believe in General Redemption.
The second is by Alan Clifford who is an Amyraldian and slightly nutty. He spends his time trying to prove that he is orthodox and that everyone in the world agrees with him. They don't.
Henry was a Calvinist.
A list of non-Cals does not demonstrate they were any less shoddy in their study than a list of Cals.
How many of the non-Cal names taught Christ died for all mankind, those to be saved and those never to be saved?
Ditto for the other four points of the TULIP.
Then we might have a thread for edification.
How many of the non-Cal names taught Christ died for all mankind, those to be saved and those never to be saved?
Ditto for the other four points of the TULIP.
Then we might have a thread for edification.
I think we get Matthew Henry for our side, but even we don't, our list seems far more impressive. Now, of course that's not an argument, but it should make us curious when we see the heavy hitters holding to the DoG. Non-Cals should not dismiss Calvinism very quickly when some of the greatest minds and men have found it to be truth.
Post #23.
Oops! Sorry!
Post #33 by Jerome. He gave two links.