Convictions
There are two types of conviction. The first is achieved through the process of sound reasoning. A person investigates the facts and then decides upon his personal standards. He can support his view from Scripture. The second is produced through constant teaching and environmental pressure. It is a conviction because the standard is all the individual has known to be true and they would be uncomfortable violating it.
Both are real but both are not valid. In the first case an individual decides upon his conviction for himself; in the second the individual is told what his conviction should be.
10 comments:
False dichotomy. Truth and convictions come through teaching as well as through searching (Prov. 2:1-9 and many other passages). It is through meekly receiving the word from both the Scriptures and our teachers that we learn to rightly divide it ourselves (Prov. 1:7-9). Timothy was indoctrinated by his mother, grandmother, and Paul before he was told to "prove all things." We must have a sound basis for conclusions and evaluations.
Thank you for contributing to this post. You are right that “we must have a sound basis for conclusions and evaluations.” But I'm concerned that in many churches and other Christian institutions there is a strong compulsion to maintain “convictions” based solely on the dogmatic assertions of a dominant personality or prevailing culture. These assertions may or may not be based on Scripture; the crucial factor is that the opportunity for individuals to discern for themselves from Scripture what their convictions should be is short-circuited. When this occurs the Christian leaders in question greatly abuse their position. Christians need to construct their standards from Scripture primarily, and only secondarily from the culture of their church or school.
Hello again,
When you are deciding your standards "based solely on the dogmatic assertions of a dominant personality or prevailing culture," I have to ask, who is to blame, those you look to for guidance or you yourself? If leaders encourage that attitude or take advantage of it, certainly they are to be blamed. We, however, have a choice to follow or not. Certainly "dogmatic assertions" and "dominant [Christian] culture" are not in themselves a sufficient basis for standards or convictions, and anyone who fails to "prove all things"--a statement addressed to the Thessalonians and not, as I first said, to Timothy--is worthy of blame. Dogma and culture do have a place, however: see 1 Cor. 14:36-38. Moreover, being taught precedes investigation. One who is ignorant is not competent to evaluate all things on his own.
While there are many who try to discern the validity of what is preached, there are still many in our churches who naively accept what is taught if it is presented dogmatically enough. Our culture does not promote critical thinking. There is a sense where instruction DOES have to precede evaluation, but if the instruction is erroneous ( incipient legalism for instance ) it will be more challenging for laypeople to Biblically evaluate the issues. Proper instruction teaches people to read the Bible for themselves and to base their convictions on what the Word says.
The problem is not merely that people do not know how to read their Bibles. Just as serious is the fact that they do not know how to read their leaders and teachers. The Scripture gives us instructions for how to recognize false teachers and undiscerning people, because teaching does not just come out of a book. It is also filtered and distilled through the thinking and experience of people who teach people. Those teachers may be good or evil, wise or foolish, competent or incompetent. You can not simply take the shortcut of developing a habit of "critical thinking" and dispense with teachers as authority figures. You have to consider teachers as well as their teaching.
You also have to consider your own limitations. You are not immune to error, just as those who teach you are not. If you simply think your way to a conclusion about the accuracy of what you are being taught without doing your homework or knowing how your teacher came to his conclusion, you are more likely to be wrong than if you searched out all the relevant facts. That can sometimes take years both of book learning and of life experience, not to mention a close walk with God.
I hope you'll forgive me if I say something blunt. It seems to me that what you are advocating is something akin to the Enlightenment era worship of Reason with a capital "R." Children of the Enlightenment emphasized and continue to emphasize the powers of human reason while minimizing or ignoring its limitations. God speaks to individual's through their reason, but there are other ways He speaks as well. If we ignore those other ways, we both lose much of what He has to teach us and corrupt our very reason itself--and that's not to say that it was entirely sanctified in the first place.
It appears that you misunderstand what I am presenting. All I'm saying is that it is possible to strongly believe something the Bible does not teach, essentially maintaining personal opinion on the same level of authority as Scripture (for all intents and purposes). This is something that is self-apparent in thousands of churches.
Teachers must always be subordinate to the Word of God, their divine authority to teach only extends as far as what Scripture itself presents. Certainly their ministry encompasses more than this since they have to flesh-out the Christian life as a living example to their flock, and to that extent they have a corresponding authority commensurate with this responsibility. Let me be clear about this (since apparently there is some confusion on the issue): I'm not advocating sole responsibility of discernment to “reason” to the exclusion of the teaching authority of pastors; that's obviously unbiblical (Hebrews 13:7, 13). I'm saying there is a need for the Church to practice the discernment of the Bereans who “searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so” (Acts 17:11). Every Christian in every local church is responsible to humbly evaluate and study and discern (in conjunction with the teaching ministry of his church) what Scripture says (and what the Spirit confirms) before forming convictions. It should be understood by all that ultimately the authority for the establishment of these convictions must come not from church culture but from the Bible.
It's a valid point. We must remember, however, that we do not walk alone: we walk with brothers and sisters in the Lord. Therefore, there is a need for mutual help and submission. It is possible to overemphasize the personal aspect of standards and beliefs, and it sounded like you were doing that in your earlier posts. Reproof, correction, instruction, and exhortation need to be given and received when they are warranted.
As for personal standards, "Whatever is not of faith is sin" (Rom. 14:23). If someone sincerely believes that there is even a strong likelihood that something is required by Scripture, he ought to beware of violating his conscience in that matter.
I'm not sure what you mean by "overemphasizing the personal aspect of standards." All standards are innately personal. Every individual is ultimately responsible before God for his standards and the rationale upon which they are based. He isn't ultimately responsible to his church, pastor or friends. However, within that framework, biblical correction and instruction are an important part of constructing and maintaining biblical standards. Also, as you said, it is necessary that the individual guard his own conscience as well as the consciences of others as he lives out the gospel.
Post a Comment