Bloated Convictions

A simple definition of the word conviction, in its non-legal setting, would be, “a fixed or firmly held belief.” As I have advanced in age and grown in the Lord, I find I have fewer convictions. That is, things I would die for. For if you’re not willing to give the ultimate for what you say you believe in, I doubt seriously it is a conviction. I think it might be listed under preference. To die for the precious Blood of Christ is one thing, to give my life for my preferences on personal separation, is another.
It is not difficult to proudly spout off an unending list of one’s convictions in the cool of the day. But when you stand before the open door of the furnace, the heat seven times hotter than it is “wont to be,” then it’s another story. I’m sure, at that time, the perspiration falling from our brow on to our cherished list, will cause the number of items to fade significantly.

Make sure your convictions do not keep you from obeying God. I’m sure Isaiah’s convictions did not agree with him walking around for three years without his clothes on. And what of Hosea being told to marry a harlot? Don’t you think he might have had some firm beliefs against such a thing? So, too, with Abraham, would he not flinch when asked to offer up his only son, like the heathen around him, who practiced such rites?

Most certainly, these were exceptions to the rule. But it surely shows that God may call upon us to lay aside our personal convictions temporarily, to fulfill His plan. When Samson was set on marrying a woman from among the Philistines, his parents, orthodox Jews, had strong convictions against it. Yet we are told in Jud.14:4, “But his father and his mother knew not that it [was] of the LORD, that he sought an occasion against the Philistines.”

But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him; How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests? A legalist could never have done this!