Should all convictions come from Scripture ?

[4boys4joys]

To Clarify.

The question posed in this thread was under the assumption that Christians would be giving their point of view on the subject. My intent was to discuss moral convictions and the like. Do they all need to come from Scripture or at least have a principal that we can direct back to scripture.

Hope This Helps.:type:

 

[4boys4joys]

???????????

The problem is not what where convictions come from...
It is people having opinions and putting them on the same level as their convictions....

Now how do you tell the difference?
A conviction is something you would die for...
An opinion is something you would not die for...

IOWS...
concerning the versions issue...
Would you be willing to die if someone made you use another version of the Bible than you use? (I think I actually know some that would)
If so... that is a conviction..
If not... it is your opinion.

See the difference...

Everything we should be willing to die for should come from the Word of God.

Would I die for my right to play with a butcher knife during rush hour? Nope...
Would I die instead of renouncing Christ...Yes.

Shouldn't my convictions be the foundation of why I have an opinion or not on any subject where else does opinion come from ?

 

[Dale-c]

Shouldn't my convictions be the foundation of why I have an opinion or not on any subject where else does opinion come from ?

Sure, even moral opinions should be Biblically based.
For instance: Modesty.

The Bible commands us to be modest but does not give exact dress codes.
You can have opinions that certian types of clothes are modest but you may not have a conviction that it has to be exactly that way, even though you are following Biblical principle.
The thing is that you have to allow for some leeway with fellow Christians who may have a somewhat different take on it.
But the bottom line is that whatever is not clear from the Bible we need to allow liberty to others.

 

[4boys4joys]

Sure, even moral opinions should be Biblically based.
For instance: Modesty.

The Bible commands us to be modest but does not give exact dress codes.
You can have opinions that certian types of clothes are modest but you may not have a conviction that it has to be exactly that way, even though you are following Biblical principle.
The thing is that you have to allow for some leeway with fellow Christians who may have a somewhat different take on it.
But the bottom line is that whatever is not clear from the Bible we need to allow liberty to others.

Thanks Dale-c. I appreciate your input on this. This is exactly what I was trying to say.

 

[tinytim]

Shouldn't my convictions be the foundation of why I have an opinion or not on any subject where else does opinion come from ?

I think Dale answered it better than I could, but I feel opinions should be based on convictions...

 

[Andy T.]

Mr. M makes some fine points. I also would add that we get our convictions from many places...our parents, our society at large, our peer groups, our sense of fairness, etc.

Sure, no one denies that people, including Christians, get our convictions from many places other than the Bible. But the question is, should we get our convictions from other places? I say no. God himself is the source of all true and right convictions, and he has revealed himself in the Bible, which is our final authority for faith, practice and daily living.

 

[Andy T.]

Here we are in a Baptist forum and no one has remembered the Baptist distinctive, "The Bible as the sole rule of faith and practice!" If you don't believe this you are not a Baptist in the historical sense! (You may call yourself whatever you want, though, some really weird Baptist church name that doesn't exist on the Internet, and maybe get away with it. :smilewinkgrin: )

A conviction is "a fixed or strong belief" (Microsoft Bookshelf 98 CD). Personally, I get my fixed or strong beliefs exclusively from the Bible. All else can change. Just look at any science or math book from a few years ago and compare it to one from nowadays. (1+1 is not always 2). Or just compare Freud (shudder) to anything modern. Or maybe dip into quantum mechanics just a little. Any of these very changeable human disciplines should send you fleeing back to the Bible for some unchangeable truth you can depend on.

Amen, John - couldn't agree more. :thumbs:

The phrase "all truth is God's truth" is often used as an excuse to dilute Biblical truth with human "science," in particular in the realm of Christian psychology (as in Gary Collins and his "spoil the Egyptians" approach).

I'm sorry to hear that someone has abused that phrase. I learned it from the fine Christian apologist, Francis Schaeffer. Schaeffer was as conservative as you could get. He used the phrase in his writings to express the idea that God was Lord over all and that he was the author of all truth. So when we do math, we can glorify God for his order and design, etc. (which we know from Biblical revelation). I'm sure Schaeffer would not like the phrase being used to co-opt a humanistic, unbiblical understanding of truth.

Peace, brother.

 

[Dale-c]

I think Dale answered it better than I could, but I feel opinions should be based on convictions...

Exactly. Like my opinions on modesty should stem from my conviction that modesty is proper.

This is a good conversation and it is a helpful reminder to examine what really are convictions and what are just opinions and preferences.

 

[John of Japan]

I'm sorry to hear that someone has abused that phrase. I learned it from the fine Christian apologist, Francis Schaeffer. Schaeffer was as conservative as you could get. He used the phrase in his writings to express the idea that God was Lord over all and that he was the author of all truth. So when we do math, we can glorify God for his order and design, etc. (which we know from Biblical revelation). I'm sure Schaeffer would not like the phrase being used to co-opt a humanistic, unbiblical understanding of truth.

Peace, brother.

I've read Schaeffer and he is excellent. I'm afraid I don't remember him using that phrase, but then it's been many years since I read him. I have no problem with using the phrase "all truth is God's truth" to refer to natural or general revelation. However, natural revelation is simply designed by God to reveal His existence, power and glory (Ps. 19). It doesn't reveal His character: holiness, love, etc.

There are those who say "all truth is God's truth" to refer to the "facts" of human science (as opposed to what is found in nature) and mathematics. I don't agree with that use of the phrase. Such facts are always subject to change. 1+1=2 is not true in base 8 mathematics, for example. And the speed of light, long pegged at 186,000 m/sec., is now known to not be a constant. Look out, Einstein's relativity theory!

God bless.

 

[HankD]

Here we are in a Baptist forum and no one has remembered the Baptist distinctive, "The Bible as the sole rule of faith and practice!" If you don't believe this you are not a Baptist in the historical sense! (You may call yourself whatever you want, though, some really weird Baptist church name that doesn't exist on the Internet, and maybe get away with it. :smilewinkgrin: )

A conviction is "a fixed or strong belief" (Microsoft Bookshelf 98 CD). Personally, I get my fixed or strong beliefs exclusively from the Bible. All else can change. Just look at any science or math book from a few years ago and compare it to one from nowadays. (1+1 is not always 2). Or just compare Freud (shudder) to anything modern. Or maybe dip into quantum mechanics just a little. Any of these very changeable human disciplines should send you fleeing back to the Bible for some unchangeable truth you can depend on.

The phrase "all truth is God's truth" is often used as an excuse to dilute Biblical truth with human "science," in particular in the realm of Christian psychology (as in Gary Collins and his "spoil the Egyptians" approach).

I'm out of here. Have to do some dendo (evangelism) and prepare for tomorrow. :type:

John, you are both right and wrong (IMO) Paradox? Not really.

Where you are wrong:
I have convictions about automobiles that I can't find in Scripture.

One conviction: Americans should only buy American made automobiles (unless of course they are missionaries in Japan).

Where you are right:
Things do change:

Another conviction that I had was against Ford products. However when my mother-in-law passed away, I inherited her 92 T-Bird and I put almost a quarter of a million problem free miles on it. My son now has it and it's approaching 300,000 miles. So, guess what?

Yes I've changed my strong belief about Fords.

So, I guess there are two distinct definitions for a "conviction" as you quoted from the MS Bookshelf. One is "fixed" the other is a "strong belief".

For instance, I have a "fixed" Trinitarian" conviction but only a "strong belief" conviction in the dispensational method of Bible interpretation.

Being a philologist, I am sure you can appreciate the distinction.

HankD

 

[John of Japan]

John, you are both right and wrong (IMO) Paradox? Not really.

Well, this sounds fun! :smilewinkgrin:

Where you are wrong:
I have convictions about automobiles that I can't find in Scripture.

Hey, not me! If it gets me from point A to B safely, I'm happy. :laugh:

One conviction: Americans should only buy American made automobiles (unless of course they are missionaries in Japan).

You bet! No way I can afford an American car over here. And the wheel is usually on the wrong side. What was Detroit thinking of?

But shouldn't a conviction be something valid for all? "Thou shalt not murder" is universal!

Where you are right:
Things do change:

Another conviction that I had was against Ford products. However when my mother-in-law passed away, I inherited her 92 T-Bird and I put almost a quarter of a million problem free miles on it. My son now has it and it's approaching 300,000 miles. So, guess what?

Yes I've changed my strong belief about Fords.

Aye, here's the rub. Do we believe a conviction is alterable or unalterable?

So, I guess there are two distinct definitions for a "conviction" as you quoted from the MS Bookshelf. One is "fixed" the other is a "strong belief".

For instance, I have a "fixed" Trinitarian" conviction but only a "strong belief" conviction in the dispensational method of Bible interpretation.

Being a philologist, I am sure you can appreciate the distinction.

HankD

One problem is that the word "conviction" occurs in almost no translations. Maybe we ought to approach this a different way by finding a better term from the Bible. A synonym might be "assurance," such as assurance on the Gospel (1 Thess. 1:5), "the full assurance of hope" (Heb. 6:11) and "full assurance of faith" (Heb. 10:22). :type:

 

[HankD]

One problem is that the word "conviction" occurs in almost no translations. Maybe we ought to approach this a different way by finding a better term from the Bible. A synonym might be "assurance," such as assurance on the Gospel (1 Thess. 1:5), "the full assurance of hope" (Heb. 6:11) and "full assurance of faith" (Heb. 10:22).

I believe you are right because in days gone by you either believed something or you didn't.

1 Kings 18:21 And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him. And the people answered him not a word.

Things were either black or white.

Now we have "grey scale" convictions.

HankD

 

[EdSutton]

I've read Schaeffer and he is excellent. I'm afraid I don't remember him using that phrase, but then it's been many years since I read him. I have no problem with using the phrase "all truth is God's truth" to refer to natural or general revelation. However, natural revelation is simply designed by God to reveal His existence, power and glory (Ps. 19). It doesn't reveal His character: holiness, love, etc.

There are those who say "all truth is God's truth" to refer to the "facts" of human science (as opposed to what is found in nature) and mathematics. I don't agree with that use of the phrase. Such facts are always subject to change. 1+1=2 is not true in base 8 mathematics, for example. And the speed of light, long pegged at 186,000 m/sec., is now known to not be a constant. Look out, Einstein's relativity theory!

God bless.

Actually, I believe that 1+1=2 is also true in Base 8 mathematics, just as it is in Base 10 mathematics.

But 1+1=10 is true for 'binary' or Base 2 mathematics, hence in this system, 1+1 does not equal 2.

I also believe the speed of light in a vacuum is assumed to be constant. But I will double-check on this, as I have a friend, who is a strong evangelical Christian, BTW, who is also a research physicist with a Ph.D., who would know.

Me, I'm just the Language Cop and a farmer, who also sometimes pushes a hack, not a physicist. :thumbs:

Ed

 

[John of Japan]

Actually, I believe that 1+1=2 is also true in Base 8 mathematics, just as it is in Base 10 mathematics.

But 1+1=10 is true for 'binary' or Base 2 mathematics, hence in this system, 1+1 does not equal 2.

Thanks for the correction, Farmer Ed. It's been a long time since I studied the stuff.

I also believe the speed of light in a vacuum is assumed to be constant. But I will double-check on this, as I have a friend, who is a strong evangelical Christian, BTW, who is also a research physicist with a Ph.D., who would know.

Me, I'm just the Language Cop and a farmer, who also sometimes pushes a hack, not a physicist. :thumbs:

Ed

This is something I very recently read an article about, and I certainly could have missed the boat. I'll be interested in what your physicist friend says.

 

[HankD]

Thanks for the correction, Farmer Ed. It's been a long time since I studied the stuff.


This is something I very recently read an article about, and I certainly could have missed the boat. I'll be interested in what your physicist friend says.

Somewhere in my library is an article in a Scientific American Mag. In fact it made the front page and the name of the article was the forbidden "H" word here at the BB (yes, on a Scientific American magazine).

The article was written several years ago (maybe 10).

What was it about? That "C" (The speed of light) of the famous e = MC squared is not a constant (which had been assumed since the birth of Modern Physics).

This is the basis of the now theory of time compression.

HankD

 

[John of Japan]

Somewhere in my library is an article in a Scientific American Mag. In fact it made the front page and the name of the article was the forbidden "H" word here at the BB (yes, on a Scientific American magazine).

The article was written several years ago (maybe 10).

What was it about? That "C" (The speed of light) of the famous e = MC squared is not a constant (which had been assumed since the birth of Modern Physics).

This is the basis of the now theory of time compression.

HankD

Aha! The thlot pickens! :thumbs:

 

[Andy T.]

O.k., let me be more specific: In arithmetic, 2+2 always equals 4. I believe arithmetic and any other kind of mathematics are apart of God's created order and design. One problem in science is that many scientists pass off their interpretation of certain facts as actual fact. Facts need to be interpreted. The only way to interpret those facts correctly is through God's special revelation, the Bible.

 

[John of Japan]

O.k., let me be more specific: In arithmetic, 2+2 always equals 4. I believe arithmetic and any other kind of mathematics are apart of God's created order and design. One problem in science is that many scientists pass off their interpretation of certain facts as actual fact. Facts need to be interpreted. The only way to interpret those facts correctly is through God's special revelation, the Bible.

Well said. Very good. I am willing to admit that facts exist outside of God's special revelation. However, I am not going to take my convictions from outside the Bible, since it has the answers on: our origins (not evolution), our destiny (not known by science), how to live (certainly not by Freud), family life (forget any secular source), the future (the occult hasn't a clue) and everything else that is important in life.

 

[Andy T.]

Speaking of worldviews and such, I was at our local Science museum (COSI in Columbus, Ohio), and we were in the Space section. They had a little panel with "Beginning" and "End" or something like that. On the "Beginning" panel, they had the evolutionary orthodoxy of the Big Bang and how that started all life, etc. But it even went on to say that "no one knows what caused the Big Bang." And then on the "End" panel it said that eventually all stars will die out and the universe will be completely dark and utterly cold. And I thought, what a sad and depressing worldview.

 

[HankD]

Speaking of worldviews and such, I was at our local Science museum (COSI in Columbus, Ohio), and we were in the Space section. They had a little panel with "Beginning" and "End" or something like that. On the "Beginning" panel, they had the evolutionary orthodoxy of the Big Bang and how that started all life, etc. But it even went on to say that "no one knows what caused the Big Bang." And then on the "End" panel it said that eventually all stars will die out and the universe will be completely dark and utterly cold. And I thought, what a sad and depressing worldview.

Actually Andy, there are many variations of the scientific "end times" theory which you reiterated. It's called the "Big Crunch" or the heat death of the universe (entropy).

But cheer up Andy, some scientists believe that shortly (no one knows how shortly) after the "Big Crunch" collapse, a new "singularity" will appear and the whole process will start over again, and again and again...ad eternum.

Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
​

HankD