Conviction vs Standard or Preference

[musingsofacac]

What do you all think is the difference between a Biblical conviction, and a standard or preference.

In my home I have certain standards for how I want my kids to behave and what I expect from them, but I would not necessarily say these things are convictions that I think the Bible clearly speaks to, its just something we have in our family.

But I think a Biblical conviction is one where based on ones interpretation and understanding of Scripture, it applies to everyone.

For example - I have a biblical conviction that there is one God and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus. That is not a standard for just my family, but a conviction that I believe applies to all men.

Obviously though when we talk about deeply held Biblical convictions, good Christians will disagree about deeply held convictions.

So do you agree or disagree with my difference between convictions and standards?

How do you think differences of deeply held Biblical convictions between Christians should be handled?

 

[ProudMomxmany]

A conviction is still personal. There are those who are convicted that women must cover their heads. There are others who are convicted about clothing, types of music, movie ratings (or even watching movies), TV, dancing, etc.

Therefore, you may have a particular conviction based on your beliefs and/or study but it does not apply to everyone as a blanket statement.

 

[Inkachu]

A conviction is something you hold to be an absolute truth. No gray areas.

A standard is something you expect and hold strongly to, but you don't apply it across the board, you don't expect the whole world to adhere to it.

A preference is just that; something you prefer, but if you don't get your way, it's not that big of a deal.

I don't waver on my convictions.

I don't waver on standards in most cases when it involves my home, my family, my work performance. However, I recognize when I'm in a situation where other standards are present that may not match mine, and I try to be respectful and not pick a battle that isn't worth picking. For example, I have a personal standard that I always say please and thank you, but if I'm out in public and someone doesn't thank me for say, holding a door for them, I'm not going to chase them down and lecture them.

I'm generally pretty flexible with preferences.

 

[WannaWitness]

The way I see it, standards and convictions can go hand-in-hand, seeing that convictions can often come from standards based on one's understanding of God's Word. There are what is called personal convictions, which means having a standard (or set of standards) we have set up on which we feel we are being obedient to the Lord, yet realizing that it is not the same for everybody. This could be a variety of things (such as what ProudMommy used as an example). By contrast, we have legalists who not only have firm convictions on a variety of things, but strongly believe that anyone who disagrees in the slightest is rendered lukewarm and/or unsaved. The legalists take something that could be an honest conviction (and even some ideas that are actually quite weird and absurd), and make it into a rule that is to be followed 100%, leaving no room for different perspectives on such issues - to them, they are the only ones who are right.

A personal choice/preference, to me, is a decision made regarding everyday things that have little or nothing to do with morals or Spiritual matters. You have a choice between two types of cookies, chocolate chip or oatmeal. The choice being made in this case is the one you like better.

Hope this helps.

 

[clark thompson]

What do you all think is the difference between a Biblical conviction, and a standard or preference.

In my home I have certain standards for how I want my kids to behave and what I expect from them, but I would not necessarily say these things are convictions that I think the Bible clearly speaks to, its just something we have in our family.

But I think a Biblical conviction is one where based on ones interpretation and understanding of Scripture, it applies to everyone.

For example - I have a biblical conviction that there is one God and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus. That is not a standard for just my family, but a conviction that I believe applies to all men.

Obviously though when we talk about deeply held Biblical convictions, good Christians will disagree about deeply held convictions.

So do you agree or disagree with my difference between convictions and standards?

How do you think differences of deeply held Biblical convictions between Christians should be handled?

I agree and like to add that a personal conviction should never g against the bible.

 

[musingsofacac]

A conviction is something you hold to be an absolute truth. No gray areas.

A standard is something you expect and hold strongly to, but you don't apply it across the board, you don't expect the whole world to adhere to it.

If a conviction is something you hold to be "absolute truth", then unlike a standard, you would "expect the whole world to adhere to it" correct?

I totally realize we cannot make other people follow our convictions(outside of our family of course).

For example, lets say a person has a conviction that Christians should not watch any movie that had any nudity or sexual content, its not a standard, it is a conviction for them.

So they are strict about whatever comes into their home, and they read the box and if it says sexuality or nudity on the box it does not get watched.

Then there are other Christians who do not hold that conviction, and would just say you can fast forward the bad scenes(I fall into this second category).

Now I would respect the person's right to hold that conviction that no Christian should even bring into their home, a movie that has any sexuality or nudity in it at all. I would even respect their right to believe I(and other Christians who don't hold that conviction) am wrong and that I should be doing that as well in my home.

As long as that person did not physically come into my home, or start harassing me about it, I would not be offended that a conviction they hold would also lead them to believe I was wrong for not doing that thing as well.

Does that make sense? Do you agree or disagree?

 

[ProudMomxmany]

Now I would respect the person's right to hold that conviction that no Christian should even bring into their home, a movie that has any sexuality or nudity in it at all. I would even respect their right to believe I(and other Christians who don't hold that conviction) am wrong and that I should be doing that as well in my home.

As long as that person did not physically come into my home, or start harassing me about it, I would not be offended that a conviction they hold would also lead them to believe I was wrong for not doing that thing as well.

Does that make sense? Do you agree or disagree?

I think that if you have a certain conviction, then its YOUR conviction, it's God speaking to YOU on a certain topic...now...there's always the possibility that you are not correct about it. If I possess a certain conviction and someone can demonstrate to me that I'm wrong, then I may need to rethink that particular conviction and humble myself to admit I am wrong.

If a certain conviction starts causing problems within my home, then I need to rethink it. I need to be willing to listen to the counsel of others around me. And, be humble enough to admit that I am wrong in that case.

However, my convictions are just that, MINE. They are not something that I need to demand that others outside of me uphold. For example, I have a personal conviction about dressing modestly and not letting anyone outside the family see me in a bathing suit or shorts. I wear skirts almost exclusively outside my home, and they all go at least below my knees. BUT...that is something that I feel God wants me to do. I'm not going to sit here and say that ALL women have to do the same thing. I can "make" my daughters do the same as long as they live in my home. However, I cannot control what they (or anyone) does outside my home.

I live in the desert southwest. It gets HOT here. I see folks wearing very little clothing here in the summer...I think it's wrong, but I have no right to insist that everyone hold to my convictions.

Whatever else I may believe or hold to as a conviction, I have no right to insist that everyone think just like I do.

 

[Inkachu]

If a conviction is something you hold to be "absolute truth", then unlike a standard, you would "expect the whole world to adhere to it" correct?

Of course not, because the whole world doesn't adhere to the truth. For example, I hold the sanctity of life to be an absolute truth, but that doesn't mean other people don't think abortion and euthanasia are OK. Even the Bible says that the truth can be suppressed, but that doesn't make it any less the truth.

I totally realize we cannot make other people follow our convictions(outside of our family of course).

Yup, pretty much what I meant.

For example, lets say a person has a conviction that Christians should not watch any movie that had any nudity or sexual content, its not a standard, it is a conviction for them.

So they are strict about whatever comes into their home, and they read the box and if it says sexuality or nudity on the box it does not get watched.

Then there are other Christians who do not hold that conviction, and would just say you can fast forward the bad scenes(I fall into this second category).

Now I would respect the person's right to hold that conviction that no Christian should even bring into their home, a movie that has any sexuality or nudity in it at all. I would even respect their right to believe I(and other Christians who don't hold that conviction) am wrong and that I should be doing that as well in my home.

As long as that person did not physically come into my home, or start harassing me about it, I would not be offended that a conviction they hold would also lead them to believe I was wrong for not doing that thing as well.

Does that make sense? Do you agree or disagree?

I agree in theory. Not sure if you're "going somewhere" with this, so my answer is cautious lol.

 

[Inkachu]

I think that if you have a certain conviction, then its YOUR conviction, it's God speaking to YOU on a certain topic...now...there's always the possibility that you are not correct about it. If I possess a certain conviction and someone can demonstrate to me that I'm wrong, then I may need to rethink that particular conviction and humble myself to admit I am wrong.

I'm not trying to play semantics or anything, but to ME, if I can waver on it, or am willing to be proven wrong, then it's not a conviction to me, it's a standard. A conviction, like I said earlier, is an absolute truth that does not change (the existence of God, for example). Other people may not believe it the way I do, but that doesn't make it untrue for me, it simply means they don't agree with me. Hope that makes sense.

 

[ProudMomxmany]

I'm not trying to play semantics or anything, but to ME, if I can waver on it, or am willing to be proven wrong, then it's not a conviction to me, it's a standard. A conviction, like I said earlier, is an absolute truth that does not change (the existence of God, for example). Other people may not believe it the way I do, but that doesn't make it untrue for me, it simply means they don't agree with me. Hope that makes sense.

I would disagree on that. If I can be proven wrong on a conviction, then it shows that, first off, I was wrong and second that I have a teachable heart and am humbled when shown that I am incorrect.

There is only one universal truth...God exists. He sent His son Jesus to save us and we must repent and turn to him for the salvation of our souls. That's it. The rest is just details.

 

[Inkachu]

I think we're just using different terms for things. And I don't think there's just one universal truth, but that's OK, too

 

[musingsofacac]

Of course not, because the whole world doesn't adhere to the truth. For example, I hold the sanctity of life to be an absolute truth, but that doesn't mean other people don't think abortion and euthanasia are OK. Even the Bible says that the truth can be suppressed, but that doesn't make it any less the truth.



Yup, pretty much what I meant.



I agree in theory. Not sure if you're "going somewhere" with this, so my answer is cautious lol.

Where I am going with this is this - I am against abortion like you. Its a conviction, not a standard. I believe it is wrong for everyone based on my interpretation of the Word of God.

So I might run into a Christian who thinks abortion not a sin, they don't share my conviction. Now I would not be rude to them, but I would respectfully say to them that I have a conviction about this that neither they or anyone else should have an abortion. I realize they have the right as a citizen to do that, but I don't think it is a right just for me, it is right for them as well. That is the nature of a Biblical conviction.

Do you agree?

 

[musingsofacac]

I'm not trying to play semantics or anything, but to ME, if I can waver on it, or am willing to be proven wrong, then it's not a conviction to me, it's a standard. A conviction, like I said earlier, is an absolute truth that does not change (the existence of God, for example). Other people may not believe it the way I do, but that doesn't make it untrue for me, it simply means they don't agree with me. Hope that makes sense.

Right - if you are unsure of something, then its not a conviction. It may be a standard or preference, but not a conviction.

Other people may interpret the Bible differently, and that is OK. You can always agree to respectfully disagree. But you for example if you meet a Christian that is ok with abortion, you don't have to validate their position and say there's is as equally right as yours, that it is just a personal choice.

 

[ProudMomxmany]

Where I am going with this is this - I am against abortion like you. Its a conviction, not a standard. I believe it is wrong for everyone based on my interpretation of the Word of God.

So I might run into a Christian who thinks abortion not a sin, they don't share my conviction. Now I would not be rude to them, but I would respectfully say to them that I have a conviction about this that neither they or anyone else should have an abortion. I realize they have the right as a citizen to do that, but I don't think it is a right just for me, it is right for them as well. That is the nature of a Biblical conviction.

Do you agree?

The problem with this is that we live in a pluralistic society and therefore do not have the right to force our convictions down someone else's throat OR campaign to have things made illegal due to our convictions.

Also, the questions are much more nuanced than you'd think. There are many grey areas in places where people would prefer to see things as black and white.

 

[musingsofacac]

The problem with this is that we live in a pluralistic society and therefore do not have the right to force our convictions down someone else's throat OR campaign to have things made illegal due to our convictions.

Also, the questions are much more nuanced than you'd think. There are many grey areas in places where people would prefer to see things as black and white.

ProudMomxmany,

It is one thing to force your conviction down someone's throat and another to stand on it. If I went to the pro-choice Christian and physically assaulted them or told them I thought they were a jerk for having a pro-choice position or tried to physically force them to follow my conviction that would be wrong.

However(not to get on a rabbit trail) - Most laws are based on morality. It just happens to be what the majority morality is. People decide what they want to allow and not allow in society. So we pass laws that say people can't text and drive, we say parents cannot abuse their children, spouses cannot abuse one another. We pass ages for marriage and rules for divorce. All of our laws are based on the morality of the majority.

So if enough Americans wanted to pass an amendment to ban abortion in America there would be nothing wrong with that.

Ok now off the rabbit trail, and back on the road...LOL.

So a Christian standing strong on their pro-life position against a pro-choice Christian's position is not wrong, as long as it done respectfully.

The pro-choice Christian may be offended at the Pro-life Christian's position, or the other way around - but we do not have the right to not be offended. Being offended is part of life. We should be respectful though.

Believe me I am offended all the time at the garbage I see in the world, like when a Christian baker might loose his business because he would not make cake for a gay wedding. That offends me. But oh well, I don't have a right to not be offended.

 

[Inkachu]

Where I am going with this is this - I am against abortion like you. Its a conviction, not a standard. I believe it is wrong for everyone based on my interpretation of the Word of God.

So I might run into a Christian who thinks abortion not a sin, they don't share my conviction. Now I would not be rude to them, but I would respectfully say to them that I have a conviction about this that neither they or anyone else should have an abortion. I realize they have the right as a citizen to do that, but I don't think it is a right just for me, it is right for them as well. That is the nature of a Biblical conviction.

Do you agree?

Well, I wouldn't bring it up unless it happened naturally, since I'm not one to just get into debates for no reason; I prefer to avoid them And yes, I agree with you. I don't push my convictions onto anyone else, I simply understand that they don't believe what I hold to be absolute truth.

 

[Inkachu]

The problem with this is that we live in a pluralistic society and therefore do not have the right to force our convictions down someone else's throat OR campaign to have things made illegal due to our convictions.

But if you carry this reasoning to its ultimate conclusion, we should all be humanists (believing that we all have our own 'truth' and everyone is entitled to their own no matter how evil or degraded we may think it is) and there should be laws whatsoever. Every law that exists or has ever existed was rooted in someone's convictions, and those convictions had a source somewhere (the Bible, etc). To say that we shouldn't campaign to have things made illegal based on our convictions is to say that NOTHING should be illegal.

I don't mean to get all debate team here, so I'll stop... sorry lol.

 

[ProudMomxmany]

ProudMomxmany,

It is one thing to force your conviction down someone's throat and another to stand on it. If I went to the pro-choice Christian and physically assaulted them or told them I thought they were a jerk for having a pro-choice position or tried to physically force them to follow my conviction that would be wrong.

However(not to get on a rabbit trail) - Most laws are based on morality. It just happens to be what the majority morality is. People decide what they want to allow and not allow in society. So we pass laws that say people can't text and drive, we say parents cannot abuse their children, spouses cannot abuse one another. We pass ages for marriage and rules for divorce. All of our laws are based on the morality of the majority.

So if enough Americans wanted to pass an amendment to ban abortion in America there would be nothing wrong with that.

Ok now off the rabbit trail, and back on the road...LOL.

So a Christian standing strong on their pro-life position against a pro-choice Christian's position is not wrong, as long as it done respectfully.

The pro-choice Christian may be offended at the Pro-life Christian's position, or the other way around - but we do not have the right to not be offended. Being offended is part of life. We should be respectful though.

Believe me I am offended all the time at the garbage I see in the world, like when a Christian baker might loose his business because he would not make cake for a gay wedding. That offends me. But oh well, I don't have a right to not be offended.

Based on our other discussions, I do not get the feeling that you are really willing to respect other points of view.

As I have grown and been exposed to many different life experiences, my own and others, I have learned that I do not know everything. Neither do I have the ability to force someone else into doing what I want or believe.

I am a firm believer in personal free will. There are certain topics that you and I will never, ever see eye to eye on, and that's fine. However, you do not have the right to decide MY salvation or lack thereof anymore than I have the right to decide yours.

I truly believe that Christians tend to get themselves all up in arms over things that really don't amount to a hill of beans. It would be much more productive to take that energy and devote it to something positive, including showing the LOVE of Christ to those who are not Christians. Many of them have very valid reasons to turn their backs on Christianity. The one I hear the most is the lack of love, the strident condemnation and the refusal of Christians to take a critical look at their own beliefs and the beliefs of others.

I once was a hard core, IFB, KJV fundamentalist. Right up until I took my beliefs into my own hands and chose to undertake an extensive study on many biblical topics. I discovered that in many, many ways I was wrong. It was painful and eye-opening. Therefore, my beliefs grew and changed and yes, evolved into something less strident, less narrow-minded and latched onto the one thing in scripture that many Christians forget..."do unto others...". That doesn't mean only the saved, only the people in my church, it means EVERYONE. I think more can be done with gentleness and love than with strident rhetoric or attempts at legislation.

 

[WannaWitness]

Here is an article that I believe sheds some good light regarding the varying convictions of those in the church. Hope it is helpful.

Living Word Heartbeat: Dealing with the Corporate Conscience of the Church (Part 1) by Pastor Carmelo Caparros II | Living Word Christian Churches of Cebu International, Inc.

 

[musingsofacac]

But if you carry this reasoning to its ultimate conclusion, we should all be humanists (believing that we all have our own 'truth' and everyone is entitled to their own no matter how evil or degraded we may think it is) and there should be laws whatsoever. Every law that exists or has ever existed was rooted in someone's convictions, and those convictions had a source somewhere (the Bible, etc). To say that we shouldn't campaign to have things made illegal based on our convictions is to say that NOTHING should be illegal.

I don't mean to get all debate team here, so I'll stop... sorry lol.

I agree with you, all laws are based on convictions of right and wrong(whatever the source of that conviction may be). I agree completely with your statement.