These days the list keeps getting bigger and bigger…
The first big trigger was probably hearing Francis Collins on NPR and realizing that believing in evolution was actually okay for a Christian to do. After that, all bets were off! I stopped feeling scared about probing my long-held beliefs that I gained from growing up in fundamental Christianity. Previously, the biggest thing I changed my mind on was probably drinking alcohol but that was a vague issue with most people I knew in my age range. But it came crashing down when I met someone who was telling me about a powerful experience he had with Christ and the whole time he was drinking a 40 oz. These little moments of people just breaking my mind and me realizing that what the last generation had taught me wasn’t actually something I cared to hold onto.
These days I’m affirming gay people and questioning the existence of hell like it’s ain’t nothin’!
The book “Torn” by Justin Lee is pretty good. It’s mostly a sort of autobiographical journey but towards the end a handful of verses are touched on for a theological argument.
For hell, I really enjoy the book “ the fire that consumes” by Edward Fudge and the podcast series with over 400 hours of debates and discussions on hell called “Rethinking Hell” hosted primarily by Chris Date.
I’ve come to a much more informed understanding of Christian doctrine over the past 50 years, as a result of doing various courses and studying church history and the history of how various doctrines came about. One subject I’ve changed my mind on is Original Sin (on which I have previously contributed to biologos). Previously I accepted the traditional Augustinian idea that we “inherit” the sin of our first parents, held by the Western (but not Eastern) church for centuries. I now interpret “original sin” to mean the innate tendency of all people, and indeed all living things, to “look after number one” (as the saying goes) while being aware that this can cause harm to others.
There are various implications of this, for example the idea that baptism “washes away” our individual “original sin” goes out of the window (which doesn’t deny the importance of baptism).
As regards the question of the authority of the Bible, it’s important to bear in mind that for a long time in the early church the New Testament did not exist, they relied on oral memory and the teaching of St. Paul and others. It was several centuries until the canon was finally determined in full. We also need to understand that the Bible is not simply a record of historical events like a modern history book. So biblical literalism, or fundamentalism, is not the right approach.
This isn’t a sudden or dramatic change for me I don’t think - but more one that has grown on me over the years to where I hold it (and aspire to hold it) much more intensely now than I did:
and that is: the primacy of Love over everything else - and that being the key to knowing the God revealed by and in Christ. Not too many years ago I would have been much more shrill about my theologies, my understandings, so many other potentially good things on the list below - many of which are no doubt good and necessary in their proper place. And that place is always under the umbrella of and at the pleasure of Love. Never vice versa. Epistles and apostles situate all those things underneath Love. They rarely (never?) have love playing second fiddle to any of those other things. It’s the one of the few things I still tend to be shrill about. Or not … because shouting at others often isn’t a loving way to treat them! But when it is … then may I not hold back.
That’s interesting about your changing view on original sin. I come from a Calvinist background and never had a reason to think twice about it. And then a few years ago I got interested in Tremper Longman’s Confronting OT Controversies, and saw that Augustine held the doctrine due to a misinterpreted Bible really through no fault of his own. Kind of ironic when it’s put that way.
However, there’s another irony in that Augustine may have been the first thinker to consider the problem of other minds, which is still a real problem in philosophy, even for the classical apologist. And I think that’s a real indicator of our fallen nature.
Lots has changed over the years, but no great big steps, just incremental changes. I had grown up in churches with dispensational rapture theology, but grew increasingly doubtful of it, eventually moving to a partial preterist belief, largely by reading N. T. Wright. I went from a fairly narrow view of Christianity, to enjoying worship with Christians in all sorts of denominations, as well as having the vague idea that Christianity itself is only an approximation of God and our relationship to him.
I don’t believe in original sin at all and believe that baptism by full immersion is an essential step in being added to the church, being forgiven and receiving the indwelling of the holy spirit.
I keep hearing this idea, but in studying church history it was clear that Constantine’s influence was limited to paying for fifty copies of the scriptures to be made, so that whatever was in those copies got a bit of a boost. On the other hand, the canon was mostly set by his time, with nineteen books accepted unanimously and only seven to fifteen, depending on the source, being in flux. He most likely regarded the matter of the canon the same way he regarded the Council he called at Nicea: he didn’t really care what was decided so long as the churches would all agree.
I admit that the quote you are criticising is a simplification of the issue, and the way that history (written by the victors) presents the story, I agree with you. To explain, I would have to expand my comments somewhat.
Constantine convened the First Council of Nicaea in 325 CE, primarily to address the Arian controversy, which centred on the nature of Jesus Christ because the Arians believed that Jesus was a created being and not of the same “substance” or essence (“homoousios” in Greek) as God the Father. It was a word specifically coined or adapted for theological discussions about the nature of Christ, and its usage in Greek literature outside of this context is limited.
The question arises as to what “substance” or “essence” does God have, which has been a central topic of theological debate and discussion within Christianity, as well as in other monotheistic religions, for centuries. God is often described as having a divine essence that is beyond human comprehension, whereas within Eastern Orthodoxy and mysticism, the limitations of human language and understanding are expressed when it comes to God’s essence is emphasized. They adopt an apophatic or “negative theology” approach, which means describing God by negation—what God is not—rather than making positive assertions about God’s essence. In Kabbalah, the concept of Ein Sof represents the infinite and unknowable essence of God. In Islam, the concept of Tawhid emphasizes the oneness and uniqueness of Allah’s essence. The bottom line for me would be that we don’t know what “substance” or “essence” God has, and this applies then to Christ too.
Arius, a Christian priest from Alexandria, Egypt, who lived in the 3rd and 4th centuries CE, believed that Jesus was a created being, distinct from God the Father, and therefore not of the same divine substance. Arianism found notable support in the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire, including regions like Egypt, Asia Minor (modern-day Turkey), and the Balkans. Bishops and theologians who embraced Arian views were influential in these areas. But Arianism also gained significant traction among some Germanic tribes that had converted to Christianity. The Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Vandals, and other Germanic groups adopted Arian Christianity, and their rulers promoted it.
Even certain Roman emperors, such as Constantius II (reigned 337-361 CE) and Valens (reigned 364-378 CE), contributed to the spread of Arianism within the Roman Empire. These emperors favoured Arianism and promoted it as the official imperial theology during their reigns. It was as Nicene Christianity gained wider acceptance and support from later Roman emperors, that Arianism gradually lost its dominance. However, during the Arian controversy there were periods of intense theological and political conflict, emperors who supported Arianism sought to enforce their theological views, and conversely, when emperors who supported Nicene Christianity came to power, they issued edicts and laws in favour of Nicene orthodoxy and sought to suppress Arianism.
Returning to the question of the substance or essence of God, In Vedanta philosophy, which is a major school of thought within Hinduism, Brahman is often described as the ultimate, unchanging, and supreme reality. It is considered the source and essence of everything in the universe and is often characterized as infinite, transcendent, and beyond all dualities. Brahman is often associated with the idea of supreme consciousness, and it is seen as the underlying unity behind all of creation. This concept is central to Advaita Vedanta, a specific philosophical tradition within Vedanta that emphasizes the non-dual nature of reality, where the individual self (Atman) is seen as ultimately identical to Brahman.
Due to the overlapping of cultural influences, I have been investigating the possibility that monotheism, whether rising surprisingly in Egypt with Echnaton, Zoroastrianism in Persia, or with Abraham, who came from Ur, a land of polytheism, could have been influenced by Vedanta teaching which predates the emergence of the Abrahamic religious traditions by many centuries, to develop a henotheistic rather than strictly monotheistic belief, which eventually became monotheistic.
I think it is valid to point to the so-called “Axial Age,” a concept introduced by the German philosopher Karl Jaspers, which suggests that during a particular historical period (roughly between the 8th and 3rd centuries BCE), there were significant intellectual and philosophical developments in various regions of the world, including China, India, the Mediterranean, and the Middle East. These developments often included the emergence of ethical and metaphysical thought, as well as the questioning of traditional beliefs and there are instances of cultural exchange and interaction, especially along trade routes, where ideas and philosophies could spread across different regions.
At the end of these considerations, the idea of humankind sharing the “substance” of God has been around for some time, although it is not one man, but all of humankind, as in the Brahman/Atman relationship. I believe that this was revived in Jesus’ teaching under the concept of divine love, which is the reason that Jesus spoke of God using the term Abba, or papa, and “Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.” (Luke 18:17) The parable of the prodigal son is most important for me, of the child leaving home and coming back destitute, with the father looking out and running to meet him.
Looking at Constantine’s interest in the Arian controversy, he needed a God that was not weak, as is visible in the story of his conversion motivated in part by a vision that he experienced at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge in Rome in 312 CE. He was a soldier, and his language was power. There has been some historical debate and speculation regarding the relationship between the Roman Emperor and Mithraism prior to his conversion to Christianity, which was an ancient mystery religion that was popular in the Roman Empire from roughly the 1st to the 4th century AD. Mithras was the central figure in this faith, and he was often associated with attributes like strength, courage, and masculinity. Worship of Mithras often involved rituals and ceremonies that emphasized initiation, hierarchy, and the pursuit of power or spiritual enlightenment. The followers of Mithraism were typically men, and it was a religion with a strong military and hierarchical structure.
There are also parallels and shared elements between Mithraism and early Christianity. In Mithraism, although Mithras is often depicted as being born from a rock or a cave, symbolizing his emergence into the world, it bears a superficial resemblance to the Christian nativity story of Jesus being born in a manger, although the details and theological meanings are quite different.
However, both Mithraism and early Christianity had ritual meals as central elements of their religious practices. In Christianity, the Eucharist or Communion is a reenactment of Jesus’ Last Supper. In Mithraism, initiates partook in a sacred meal that symbolized a communion with Mithras. Initiates in both Mithraism and early Christianity underwent a form of ritual purification or initiation. In Christianity, this is seen in the sacrament of baptism, where believers are symbolically cleansed of sin through immersion in water. In Mithraism, initiates were sometimes purified through a ritual bath.
The imagery of the lamb is also significant in both traditions. In Christianity, Jesus is often referred to as the “Lamb of God.” In Mithraism, Mithras is depicted slaying a bull, and the blood of the bull is sometimes equated with the life-giving force, much like the sacrificial lamb in Christianity. Finally, both traditions include stories of a divine figure’s ascension to heaven. In Christianity, this is seen in the Ascension of Jesus. In some Mithraic iconography, Mithras is depicted ascending to the heavens in a chariot.
The parallels are enough, I believe, for Constantine to take an interest in unifying his empire using Christianity, but disposing with the idea of a human Jesus, which consequently influenced the reading and exegesis of scripture. It was already clear from Paul’s letters that he considered Jesus as the Christ a cosmic event, and it is easy to transfer this meaning into having divine substance with God, especially if a vedantic influence was implied by the words of Jesus.
I’m sorry about the longwinded answer, but I couldn’t cut it short.
I changed a lot to my theology. I regard extra biblical sources as well as science as part of the whole “creation”. I don’t consider the bible to be de facto authority on how we should behave. Sola scriptura or how is it called is nonsense to me.
I’ve changed my views on Gods character realising that he can be both evil and good.
I’ve also changed my views on Christology . I don’t consider myself “trinitarian” per say.
I’m currently changing my ideas about polytheism as well. I saw from another comment on a thread about lesser “gods” the bible talk d about and if we take into consideration that the ancient Israelites did accept different Gods but later worshiped only “One” the superior El or YAHWEH it makes some sense that maybe the other polytheistic religions did got some things right.
I’ve very fond of the “Theosis” concept of the Eastern Orthodox church . Theosis is the understanding that human beings can have real union with God, and so become like God to such a degree that we participate in the divine nature.
I believe the way to paradise is to achieve Theosis and trough that ultimate gnosis .
But that’s almost impossible for everyone. So by obeying Gods commands and having high virtues and compassion for the fellow man we can enter heaven after a cleansing in the purgatory
Except Constantine didn’t care what the council decided so long as they agreed on something. He wanted an orderly empire, and Christianity was ten percent of the population who kept arguing over doctrine to the point of actual fighting. He didn’t expect to unify the empire using Christianity, he just didn’t like what was a large minority being disorderly. It’s also fairly evident that he didn’t really grasp the difference between Arius and the rest.
Your statement is a matter of historical interpretation and analysis rather than a proven fact. It represents a specific viewpoint or theory about the motivations and actions of the Roman Emperor Constantine in convening the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. This interpretation is based on an analysis of historical evidence and sources, but it’s important to note that there is ongoing debate among historians about Constantine’s exact motivations and understanding of the theological issues at play. While it is clear that Constantine was concerned with restoring order and unity in the Roman Empire, as well as addressing the theological disputes within the Christian community, the exact nature and extent of his understanding of the theological issues remain a topic of debate, or whether he fully grasped the theological nuances of the Arian controversy is unknown. Some historians argue that he may not have had a deep theological understanding and may have viewed the controversy as a source of division and disorder that needed to be resolved for the sake of unity.
But that was my argument. He was using Christianity and by demanding a theological unification, changing it. He was giving a certain group precedence with imperial authority, and I can’t help thinking of historical similarities to the cold war, in which East and West (empires) brought an imbalance in the Islamic world about, finally causing a religious fundamentalism to take over, which oppressed moderates.
evidence of being born again