Opinion, Conviction and Doctrine

When approaching theology, many of us often make the mistake of mixing issues and make erroneous conclusions resulting is poor decision making.

Last weekend, I attended a friend's church wedding. Even before the wedding, I had been cautioned that the bride's Reformed Baptist church had 'ordered' all its 30-something members not to attend the wedding. The real reasons for the strange order was unclear, but was told that the Baptist church was doubtful of the groom's conversion experience. Sources told me that the bride's church made a decision that the marriage has all the signs of a 'unequally yoked' nuptial.

The groom was from a Methodist church. They way I see it, it would have been a simple solution. The Baptist ministers could have discussed with the Methodist ministers to sort this out, rather than banning participation in the wedding. If there are clear reasons to doubt the conversion, talk collectively to the groom. I am not sure if this was done. Perhaps, there are other even more grave reasons for the Baptist Church's stand, I don't know. Nevertheless, it was a sad and an unfortunate development.

I am also wondering if this is actually the result of a difference in theological conviction between the Reformed Baptist Church (who are Calvinistic) and the Methodists (who are mostly Arminians). Maybe it isn't, and I would be very glad if I am wrong here.

But what if I am right? Then, this is a tragedy indeed. We need unity, not division.

This is the result of confusing what is an opinion, conviction and a doctrine. I see many Christians making similar errors when it comes to stating an opinion, a conviction or relating a doctrine. Do you know the difference? Let me put it in a simple manner. Let us consider the issue of Jesus' Second Coming as an example.

Opinions usually carry an element of uncertainty in it. Example: "I think Jesus is coming again." or "I don't think Jesus is coming again." or "Jesus has already returned!"
Opinions need not be treated as gospel truth, but needs further examination and discussion to find out the truth.

Convictions involve elements of faith and also our personal biases (if any). Example: "I do/do not believe totally that Jesus is coming again. No doubt about it." or "I am totally convinced that Jesus will return soon in before the end of this century!". These are personal convictions, which also require further examination. Sometimes, we only need to accept it as it is - a person's conviction. We need not necessarily accept it as doctrine. Neither do we have to believe it completely.

Doctrines are unshakeable truths, which will stand true through the test of time throughout eternity. Example: "Jesus will come again for a second time." Period. No debate required. That's what the Bible teaches, and that's the truth of the matter.

What's to be debated however, will depend on one's conviction and opinion. For instance, since Jesus is coming back (doctrine), when will he return (either opinion or conviction). The line between opinion and conviction may not be very obvious, but convictions typically come as a result of much faith, research, personal/group bias or even the result of spritual conviction.

Will discuss more about this another time. If we all can understand this frame and accept, i think we will have less debates and look of points of unity instead of diversity. That wedding would have continued in a very exciting way, had all the leaders acted in a mature manner.

What do you think?

Cleanup

My golly! it has been more than a year since I last updated my blog. It is to my shame that I failed to do so. But I am attempting to restart.

A lot happened this past one year. I met Neil Armstrong and Ravi Zacharias ... and many other things are happening around the world. It is time to start analysis again.

Prathab

Freedom and Calvinism

The great software freedom icon Richard Stallman was in Kuala Lumpur last Saturday. He gave a public seminar at University Malaya, which was well attended (by freedomn lovers? pirates?) ;-) .

Stallman, the author of the famous 'The Cathedral and the Bazaar" which promoted software freedom, sounded very much a 'software Arminian'. He was espousing the notoriety of software patents and spoke about why software should be 'set free' for the greater benefit of mankind.

While I liked his talk and agree with his philosophy, at some point he did appear to be a 'anarchist' (to me at least and my friend Chor Hon). Still, freedom is something I agree we should all have. Then we bear the consequences of out actions, whatever that is.

The next day, a Sunday, I heard a sermon in church, which seemed very much Calvinistic. The preacher was saying that our life has all been planned and programmed. His proof? The DNA. Since the DNA determines who, what and why we are the way we are, our life is pretty much fixed. So the preacher says. But is it true?

Can we equate what is true in the physical world to be applicable in the spiritual realm? What about the thought functions? Scientist still don't know what are the full function of the brain.

I disagree with the pracher, for he placed into scripture what wasn't supposed to be there. The 400-year debate between the two school of thought is not resolved but why are we still fighting?

What a weekend...Software Arminian and a probably a Calvinist preacher lecture. Good, it set my grey matter to think freely.

"Freely you have been given, freely give!" (Context: Give genrously)

What Ought To Be

I was listening to a Ravi Zacharias debate yesterday on a CD. The debate was held prior to 9/11. In that debate, a professor, calling himself a religious atheist (whatever that means!) and a naturalist (who denies the existence of a moral lawgiver) got into some kind of trouble.

A comment from the floor went something like this: 'If this world is what it ought NOT to be, then there must be something what OUGHT to be. If there is something that ought to be, then there must be an intelligent designer who created what ought to be.' Is this true?

Though it may sound a little confusing, but certainly this world is NOT what it OUGHT to be. Because of the fallen nature of man, this world has transformed to be what it ought NOT to be. The naturalist takes issue with this and says that he does not believe in the fallen nature of man. His rationale: It is unfair to punish the whole of mankind for the sins of the first couple.

Funny. He disagrees with the objective nature of moral law, yet he pases moral jugments on what is right and wrong. He also says that life has little meaning. If that is the case, how can we attribute meaning to his words?

Oh, the depths to which atheists, naturalists and sceptics have to go to explain God away.....what a joke this is!

This is funny....

A funny quote on Postmodern Epistemology by Jonah Goldberg, National Review Online Editor:

"For example. If I stood up in a classroom at Brown or Harvard or Yale and declared, "Let the best man win," the students would turn into a human sprinkler-system of deconstructing inquiry. What do you mean by "man"? What are your criteria for "best"? Why does someone have to "win" at all? Couldn't we define the task more cooperatively? When you say "let," who is doing the "letting"? Isn't that just another way of saying we should "let" the patriarchal capitalist system continue to reward those already deemed "best" (and, therefore, most advantaged)? This word "the," it seems to connote that there is only a single criterion for determining a privileged status; couldn't there be a more pluralistic approach? Etc., yawn, etc. "

Who needs God?

These days, it is rare to see a day go by without reading a piece of news about someone getting killed due to a religious protest/riot or a suicide bombing.

One of the reasons often cited is that God's name has been blasphemed, and so the blasphemer must be put to death.

Yes, in the Old Testament, death is prescribed for the blaphemer (Lev 24:15,16). But those laws are no longer relevant under the New Testament of Jesus Christ. The 'law' of Jesus is characterised by love and grace. We are to forgive. We are to allow God to punish the evildoer, not us. This is evident in the way Jesus dealt with the harlot (John 8:1-11). Grace so amazing!

So why are so consumed with extreme zeal so as to defend God's name? Why not allow God to defend His own Name? Or do we think He is too weak to defend Himself? Is He asking us to help Him instead? No! God is God because He is all powerful and yet He is all merciful. He can't be God if He cannot defend His own Name. Does God need us to help Him to do battle for Him?

No. God does not need us. It is we who need Him. God will still be God even if we don't exist.

To me, God alone should be left to defend Himself. We are to proclaim His love and greatness. But if we act to take the life of another soul, we play the role of a judge. Who are we to judge? God is the only judge. Let Him alone administer the punishment.

So what is our task? We are to love even the vilest of sinners. That's what Jesus Himself did. Love so unbelievable...but true!

First man on moon

While intellect is definitely very useful before placing one's faith in Jesus Christ, it alone will not be sufficient. But why are the intellects so concerned about having the mind thoroughly persuaded before deciding to trust in Jesus?

Contrary to popular belief, we all place more faith in so many things everyday. For instance, one of my favourite questions to sceptics is this: Who is the first man on man? Most reply without hesitation - "Neil Armstrong!" I then move to ask my second favourite question: How do you know that? Stumped, some reply that they read about it in the papers. Others say they saw a recording of it on TV. Some say it is in the encylopaedia...and so on so forth.

But, incredibly, other than Edwin Aldrin, they were no eye witnesses. But we all ACCEPT as FACT that it is Armstrong who first placed man's footprint on the moon.

On the contrary there are numerous acoounts and literary fragments which attest to the resurrection and deity of Jesus. In fact acording to Josh McDowell, there are more literary fragments which date as some of the oldest copies than even Homer's Iliad! Yet, sceptics rather place their faith that Homer's Iliad is uncorrupted. They rather place their faith on the moon conquest account rather than what happened here on earth with Jesus.

Still, trusting Jesus requires more than an enquiring mind. It also requires faith. Again, it is NOT blind faith. It is faith based on facts...and faith based on the love of God who gives His own Son for our sakes.

Hebrews 11:6 says "But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him."

Go...seek Him earnestly. You will find Him...and He will find you!

Worst moment for atheists

'The worst moment for the atheist is when he is really thankful and has nobody to thank!'
- Dante Gabriel Rosetti
English painter & poet (1828 - 1882)

"We don't want justice!..."

About two weeks ago, I caught an interesting Larry King session while I was in Penang. Larry got at least four religious people to speak regarding death. The topic? "What happens when we die?"

The backdrop to the whole discussion was the recent demise of Pope John Paul II. One of the invited religious personality was popular author and speaker, John MacArthur. The others included a Muslim, a Jewish Rabbi, and an atheist. While all admit that they dont really know where one would go eventually, they were in agreement that doing good deeds will earn them sufficient points to get to Heaven. As I was expecting, MacArthur was the only dissenting voice. (The atheist apparently had no comments!)

According MacArthur, good deeds is based on a justice system that determines the good and the bad. He disagrees with the others. "We don't want justice...!" MacArthur blurted out. Larry King appeared stunned for a moment. "You don't want justice?" Larry asked.

Yes, said MacArthur. "We don't want justice because justice would send us all to hell!" he said. MacArthur could not have said it more accurately. What he mentioned is essentially the crux of the issue with the Gospel of Jesus. One can be saved only by grace, not by good works...less anyone should boast before a Holy God. Ephesians 2:8-10. Only grace...so amazing...so sacrificial...will take us to our Creator.