Moving From Tradition
This is another post in a series I’ll be doing of questions that some of you asked. If you would like to add your question, go here and do so.
Today’s question comes from Seth, a guy who I sing with fairly consistently at Sunset. He probably knows more about the Bible and theology than any non-pastor at Sunset.
He asked:
What, if any, traditional theological position have you changed your view on?
This was definitely a question that took some thinking. Partly because traditional is somewhat of a loose word (which tradition should I be thinking of) and also because many view it as a negative thing to stray from traditional positions and beliefs.
- God’s Sovereignty
Kurt and I spent most of the this past summer going over the sovereignty of God, and I even had a long series on this blog on the topic as well. A traditional position is that God is completely sovereign and in control of everything. As I wrote back here, I simply do not think this is true. I’d summarize my thoughts on God’s sovereignty with this:
The Bible says that God causes things to happen, and it also says that God changes his mind. Sure we could come to agree on one of those, and then find a way to explain the other, but let’s be honest…none of the explanations make much sense. Somehow God is both of these things: static and fluid.
God’s sovereignty, or lack of it, is a traditional position that I have changed my view on. Going from believing God was in control of everything, to thinking that somehow, in some way, God can and does change his mind.
There are many other positions that I think I view differently than others today, but I wouldn’t consider those to be traditional Christian positions. So I won’t name them here.
said: 
said: 
said: 
said: 
said: 
said: 
Tyler Braun.
I grew up a Arminian and moved to a Calvanist.
I guess I was just pre-destined to do this or God changed his mind.
I recently changed my view on demon possession and the Christian. I now believe that true believers can be demon possessed.
Someone must have written a nice theology paper for Lockwood
Nice work Dave.
Not “have written”, writing….
I feel like the more I read the Bible, the less I feel I really *know* about it.
I do think tradition is a moving target, as different people are brought up under different traditions. I’ve loosened my views on quite a few things. I’m left with “Jesus is Lord and Christ,” and everything else is subject to debate.
Church. What church is, How it should or does look, What God calls the Church do and be. I find that relationship with God has changed and is changing as I alter the view I grew up with. And I love what it’s doing in me.
Tyler, can’t God still be totally sovereign and in control of all things and still change his mind? To me his sovereignty means that he is Supreme, above all else, that he has no equals. In that regard he is still in control even when (if) he does change his mind. Kind of like when the US Supreme Court makes a decision that reverses a previous ruling of theirs. They are still ’supreme’ (though I would not call them sovereign) even when they change their minds. The obvious weakness in this example is that the supreme court can make wrong decisions while God does not. Whether or not God changes his mind isn’t his decision always sovereign?
I really appreciate your posts, your insights, and your willingness to engage in these conversations.
Hi Tyler,
I would put forth that what you are articulating isn’t as much a critique of sovereignty as it is a critique of whether or not God is impassible. That is, if God is changing His mind, he is still the sovereign one in control.
There has been an idea floating around though that views God as an unmoved mover, who doesn’t feel pain or change His mind. Maybe I’m understanding you wrong, but that’s more what it sounds like you are changing than any specific view on sovereignty.
As for myself, my view on how God relates to time has moved back and forth some, where I feel like I went from a traditional arminian view to toying with a more calvinist form, and now back to an arminian/borderline open view. The other that I’ve found myself moving on is my theology of what creation and humanity was like pre-fall. I now believe that humanity was created in immature relationship and not perfect relationship, and that us using language of things being perfect before the fall betrays what we’re really about, that instead God created humanity to join with Him in work in creation. At first glance it seems like it wouldn’t effect a lot of other views, but I find myself surprised sometimes when I think of the implications.