ell, I’m finally taking the time to post my thoughts on the recent discussions here. Again, I would like to thank each of you who contributed to this discussion. There have been some really good comments made, and some good ideas tossed around. I wish I could take the time to focus on all of them, but the discussion went in several different directions, and it’s hard to do justice to each of them. So, this post will be a bit of my rambling responses to some of the comments.
First of all, there do appear to be some key areas of agreement, and I want to shine the light on those for a bit. Perhaps the most obvious point of agreement in this discussion is that the line between “sound doctrine” and “unsound doctrine” has to be drawn somewhere. Someone cannot completely deny Jesus and yet still lay claim to the label of Christianity without all of us in this discussion muttering, “yeah, RIGHT!” 
So, I think it’s pretty obvious that all of us who have participated in this conversation have agreed that there are certain foundational truths that set us apart as Christians.
When I posed my questions on “orthodoxy”, I wasn’t sure which way the discussion would go. One of the suggestions that was made, however, was that the term “orthodoxy” be scrapped in the discussion for the term “sound doctrine”. This also seemed to be agreeable. I found this rather interesting. Not that it was agreed upon, but the fact that the response to a perceived negative connotation was to suggest using a different term. I think this can be very useful at times. Of course, we must be careful that we are not simply ignoring very real problems with the previous term and turning a blind eye to them.
The main reason I brought up the topic of discussion on orthodoxy was because that term had very quickly surfaced in response to my thoughts about confessions. The line of thinking seems to be that creeds and confessions are developed at certain key points in the history of Christianity in order to preserve (a sort of “freeze-frame”, if you will) elements of what is considered to be “sound doctrine”.
One particular problem with this line of thinking, however, is that it implies that “sound doctrine” needs to be “developed” over time. This is precisely the caution flag I was raising in the forerunner to this whole discussion, my thoughts about how “sola scriptura” comes to mean “Scripture plus whatever other documents we feel necessary”. Even if one buys into the idea (as has been suggested by some) that “sola scriptura” differs from the other four solas of the Reformation by meaning “only Scripture has a particular characteristic of being inspired” as opposed to “only Scripture actually is used in our theology”, we still have this problem of the amount of weight creeds and confessions are given in our theological discussions.
Another problem, perhaps, with the idea of “sound doctrine” being developed over time, and codified in creeds and confessions is that this seems to run quite counter to the teaching of Scripture itself. For example, Tony Sisk gave a great rundown of the use of the word “doctrine” in 1 Timothy. There’s some really good stuff there, but it indicates that Paul seemed to think that “sound doctrine” was an already understood and established thing.
To underscore this point, I would like to quote from one of Gordon Cloud’s comments:
[I]t is important to note that there is no “new truthâ€. What is true, has been true from the beginning. It is our responsibility to determine what that truth is.
So, from my perspective, Tony’s list of Paul’s comments on doctrine still begs the original questions. What are the boundaries of this set of beliefs that Paul was talking about when he mentioned “sound doctrine”? And how do we handle beliefs outside of those boundaries (whether considered orthodox or not)?
I believe someone mentioned in the discussion Paul’s harsh words in Galatians regarding anyone who preached “another gospel”. And this would seem, at first glance, to shed some light on how we react to “unsound doctrine”, right? Except the problem that we have there is that Paul is reacting to a very specific “other gospel”. We proceed carelessly if we assume that this is biblical instruction on how to deal with doctrine that differs from the Westminster Confession of Faith, for example.
Again, a point that I have tried to make here is that Paul preached a very particular Gospel. He summarizes it beautifully in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. Now, I want you to notice something very clearly stated here in this passage. Paul says that the statements in verses 3 and 4 (“…Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised again on the third day according to the Scriptures…”) are the gospel that he preached to the Corinthians. And he says that it is this Gospel which they received, and in which they stand, and by which they are saved!
So, is it necessary to add anything else to this in order to understand what Paul meant by “sound doctrine” in 1 Timothy? 1 Corinthians 1:3-4 is the best summary of the Gospel message itself that I can find in Scripture! And it is the only “line in the sand” that we need draw, if we want to remain true to what Paul preached. At least, that’s my opinion!
What did Paul preach about Jesus? I mentioned in an earlier post or comment that Paul never mentions the virgin birth. And I believe it was Gordon (although I can’t find the exact comment now, skimming the past posts and comments) who said, in effect, “Yeah, but the virgin birth has a lot to do with who Jesus was, and so is important in showing the fulfillment of prophecy in the birth of Jesus.” (I hope I’m representing that comment fairly.) But this seems, to me, to miss the point. What is the point of Paul’s teaching about Jesus? Jesus was the one whom God anointed (this is the meaning of the title “Christ”), and whom God selected to be the sacrifice for our sins. That much is fully present in Paul’s teaching. But those statements that I just made do not require the virgin birth, in and of themselves. (Walk carefully with me through this. It’s not as weird as you think it is!)
So, of what importance is the virgin birth? Well, let me try to explain my thoughts on this. As a part of understanding how Jesus’ sacrifice could be so perfect and so capable of being in our place, the virgin birth gives us a means to understand something about Jesus’ very unique origin. (This is why I made the tangential comment in a recent post about Jesus being a “unique” son of God, but not the “only” son of God.) And in understanding the uniqueness of how Jesus physically came into being, we can begin to see a better picture of how His sacrifice was, itself, uniquely qualified.
In other words, it is quite helpful and wonderful to know and understand (to the extent in which we can “understand” the virgin birth!), but the Gospel does not fall apart without it. The virgin birth is not a fully essential part of the Gospel itself. I may have made this point before, but notice that Paul does not include the statement that Jesus was “born according to the Scriptures” in his summary of the Gospel. In fact, the full weight of Paul’s emphasis in his teaching is on the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus! This is quite worth noting in this discussion about sound doctrine.
So, what was Paul upset about in Galatians? He was upset that some were teaching that there was something other than the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ that was necessary for salvation. It’s not that they were denying the virgin birth. It’s not that they were disputing some definition of the Trinity. They were denying the very work of Christ on the cross for salvation from sins!
I would submit, then, for your pondering, that this is precisely what Paul meant when he told Timothy to teach “sound doctrine”. We must teach the truth of the Gospel, but we must not add to that, and give equal weight to other aspects of what we believe. If we do, even if what we teach is “correct”, I think we commit a very similar error as one who is teaching something that is unbiblical in itself.
I don’t fully expect this series of discussions to change too many people’s minds. But the one thing I do want is to help people think more critically of the assumptions that we bring to the table. With that in mind, I again thank you all for your gracious dialogue. The conversation can continue for anyone interested. I may move on to other topics in the next post, however.
Until next time,
steve 
Great thoughts Steve! I think that we do more harm than good when we try and take “true” statements and turn them in to “essential” statements. Before long, if we are not careful, the Gospel becomes something that can only be received and embraced by seminary graduates! Are the “Four Spiritual Laws” in danger of being replaced by a systematic theology book? Any time we add to the essential nature of the Gospel, whether it be with truth or falsehood, we are in danger of watering-down the Good News and putting an unnecessary stumbling block in someone’s path to Jesus. To some, this might sound like an oxymoron. They would seem to think that NOT including things like the virgin birth as an essential belief preceding salvation to be watering-down the Gospel. I would beg to differ though.
Thanks everyone for a great discussion. It is so nice to have a place to lovingly talk these things through with people of differing perspectives.
BTW…yes I really did post this at 4:04am!
This is a good post, Steve. (And yes, you were in the ballpark on quoting my comment
I would point out, though, as I did before, I do not think that it is essential that one understand the virgin birth to be saved. I know that I didn’t have a clue when I got saved. My point is, that if a person denies the virgin birth, they are first denying the Word of God which clearly teaches the concept. Second, they are striking at the lynch-pin between the dual natures of Christ, thus possibly saying that He is not God in the flesh.
If those two tenets of faith are denied, upon what then, may they rest their hope of salvation?
Speaking from personal experience, I have never met anyone who denied the virgin birth who did not also make salvation a works-based religion. There may be exceptions to that, but I have not met any.
Gordon, I appreciate your thoughts here. I don’t have time to respond to them right now (I’m getting ready to run out the door to my “day job”), but will dialogue with you about this very soon. Your questions are fair, and I’ve got some thoughts that I want to bounce off you in response.
steve
Gordon, I want to first of all address the following statement you made:
In response to that, I want to pose the same question I posed to Earl last week. To my knowledge, Earl never answered this, so I’d love to get your take on it. Here’s a modified version of what I wrote to Earl:
Now we are left with a couple of options:
As I see it, those are about the only options. Did I miss anything there?
I realize this sounds quite hypothetical, and perhaps it is. I want to be careful not to get too bogged down in the hypothetical example. But I think it raises some questions (at least in my mind!! hehe) as to the legitimacy of saying on the one hand that someone can be saved without understanding a particular teaching, and then say that later on, they must embrace that teaching in order to be considered to be saved.
Whatever things are considered absolutely essential for salvation then must, out of fairness to the new convert (who later will be told he must believe other things in addition to the basic Gospel that was presented to him at the time of his salvation), be presented to that person before we can actually give a call to salvation.
Am I thinking this through too much?
steve
Steve, the hypothetical situation you have described is somewhat different than to what I referred. You described them as being unconvinced. I described them as denying.
I would not say that a person in the circumstances you mentioned is necessarily lost just because they may experience a period of time in which they question the truth of the virgin birth.
Throughout the N.T., there is a strong connection between faith and truth. I believe that if a person has truly experienced saving faith, in time that faith will enable them to grasp and believe the truth.
By the same token, if that person were ever to come to the point where they blatantly denied the virgin birth, I would question whether or not they had ever actually been saved. This may seem to be a radical statement but bear with me.
I think we would probably agree that if a person denies that Jesus is God in the flesh, that person is not saved. As I see it, there are basically three forms of evidence in the Gospels that point to the deity of Christ:
1. The Virgin Birth
2. The claims of Christ Himself (especially those found in John 10)
3. The Resurrection
According to Romans 10:9-10, in order for one to be saved, they must publicly acknowledge (confess) the person of the Lord Jesus, and embrace the doctrine of the resurrection. This all points to the deity of Christ. If they deny either His identity or the resurrection, they are denying His power to save. If they deny the virgin birth, they are denying the miracle that is at the very heart of His identity. If they cannot believe what His word says about who He is, then how in the world will they be able to believe what He said about salvation? Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.
As I mentioned in a previous comment, the virgin birth is the lynch-pin in the hypostatic union. If a person denies this key point, they reduce Jesus to the level of being a mere man and nothing more.
Thanks for your thoughtful answer. This is a beneficial discussion.
Gordon, thank you so much for your reply. I think I’m getting a better understanding of where you’re coming from, and would like to press just a bit further, if I may.
First of all, you may not be the best person for me to have this discussion with because I don’t see this behavior that I’m so furiously attacking (hehe…just kidding) in your interactions. But here’s what I see play out with the whole “orthodoxy” or “sound doctrine” situation:
While you talk about not “necessarily [being] lost” if one questions the virgin birth, one of the foundational things I’ve been talking about in these posts is the tendency for people to pass judgment on someone by not viewing them as a believer due to a failure to pass the “checklist” test of “orthodox doctrine”.
Let me summarize something I’ve been trying to communicate here in this series of posts and see if you would agree or not agree on the surface of it:
The reason my list is so short is that it allows for people to be working through some of these other doctrines, without feeling the need to question their salvation. In other words, it gives the other person the benefit of the doubt without me standing in the way of their fellowship.
See, I’m not sure that practically speaking there’s a whole lot of difference between someone “questioning” a doctrine, and someone “denying” the same doctrine.
Let me make it even more personal. You’ve seen me mention this on this blog before, probably, but this is part of what really drives these types of conversations for me. This is where it doesn’t become hypothetical, but becomes very real, because this is from my own life right now:
There are aspects of the Nicene/Chalcedonian/Athenasian codification of the doctrine of the Trinity that bother me. Not a lot of aspects, mind you. But it’s just one of those things that I think goes farther than the actual biblical revelation goes.
Because of that, it is hard for me to put my name on something (like an organization’s statement of faith) that uses the same type of wording in a definition of the Godhead.
Now here’s the thing: I believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I believe Jesus is God (which ultimately was the driving force behind the creeds being developed anyway, for what that’s worth), and I do not go to the other side of the spectrum to Oneness theology because I see that as too far the other way, too. So, my belief in the Godhead, for all intents and purposes is “orthodox”.
However, there are some (especially in the blogosphere) who have really had a hard time with that. Because I am reluctant to use the word “Trinity” (at least without clarification), and reluctant to just accept the party line about “this is who God is, and we have it all nailed down in this creed, and there’s nothing else you need to know about it”, I have actually had some who have questioned my salvation. And if they don’t question my salvation, they sure are quite willing to label my statements as “heresy”.
Sometimes it’s not quite that blatant, but manifests itself more in a “Well, I think you’re quite dangerously close to heresy there, and I’ll pray that you’ll get this straightened out”.
I’ll be quite blunt. Sometimes that really hurts. It hurts because I am being held to a creed over and above Scripture itself as a “test of orthodoxy”.
Now, the question is: Am I denying the doctrine of the Trinity? Many would say yes, because I’m willing to just say “I affirm that doctrine”. And if I am perceived as “denying” it, then my salvation is in question.
What’s the difference between my handling of the doctrine of the Trinity in this way and someone questioning any other doctrine?
Bottom line, I think that what you are ultimately getting at is that there are certain beliefs about Scripture that would be on your short list, too. Namely, you seem to tie belief in inspiration and inerrancy to the hope that believers have, and therefore don’t see how the two can be separated. Is that accurate?
Thanks again for your wonderful contributions here, Gordon. You are a blessing!!
steve
Steve, thanks for your response. I want to be able to answer you at length, but I am heading out the door and will be gone until late tonight. I will try to get back with you either then or in the morning.
(In the words of a certain centurion, “I’m gonna come back and get you”)
Until then, have a blessed day.
P.S. I don’t doubt your salvation.
Steve,
This is a great post, and it reveals so much about your heart, especially in the comment threads. I think I enjoy reading those more than the actual posts!
My spirit has been in much consternation over this series of posts. I honestly was not trying to tear you down and I hope I never came across as a troll. Neither do I want to wear out my welcome here. This is a safe place, and I think it was Earl who said in a comment, “This is a fun place!” I concur.
I myself am working through a lot of these same issues; understandings of what is necessary and what isn’t. I am looking to be freed from a lot of the trappings you yourself seem to have “broken the bonds” of, so to speak. So I appreciate you taking the time to dialogue with me. I have learned much.
Honestly, I believe our attitudes toward orthodoxy (and I know I said I would lay that word aside, but humor me
) are fairly similar. I believe orthodoxy is fluid; not that the doctrines themselves change, but that our attitudes about them change as we grow in respect to Jesus. Orthodoxy is more a function of the heart than a function of the head. Does that make any sense at all?
And btw, I never for a moment doubted your sincerity nor your salvation. It is confirmed over every syllable I have read.
Blessings be upon you and yours.
Sincerely,
Tony
If believing in Jesus is about what we believe about Jesus then perhaps what we do in response to believing is more imortant than we think. For example, if one professes faith in Christ in accordance with “sound doctrine” and his life is not congruent with the life of Christ (in any way) then perhaps he only has head faith. On the flip side, if one professes faith in Christ in and does not seem to have a grasp of “sound doctrine” and his life is congruent with the life of Christ then perhaps he has heart faith.
The challenge that I encounter when discussing sound doctrine is the 18″ between the heart and the head. I think that many follow Jesus with their head and their heart is not in it. So, I think, it is possible to embrace “Sound Doctrine” but not really embrace Jesus because trust/faith is a heart issue and not a head issue.
PS: It is still annoying to have to enter the anti-spam word twice because the Post button is not initially visible.
Gordon, Tony, and Bob,
Thank you all for your comments!
First things first: Bob, I really am trying to find the solution to the antispam thing, so bear with me! But you really don’t have to enter it at all when you are clicking the “Preview” button. (By the way, when I first tried having the post button on the first page, my server went down for 10 minutes when I clicked “Post”, so I’m troubleshooting that, too, so that people who don’t want to preview their comment don’t have to.) If you just leave it blank, ignore it, etc., until you are actually going to click the “Post” button on the preview page, you won’t have to enter it twice. I’m sorry this is annoying right now, but thanks for commenting anyway!
OK, now on to meatier things: Bob, you made some reallllllly great points in your response here, and I appreciate what you have said. You have really spelled out in a great way the danger of the pendulum swing toward an over-emphasis on sound doctrine. I would definitely say that, even though Paul does talk about doctrine, he does seem to talk even more about how we actually should be living. This is worth keeping in mind.
Tony, your heart comes through, too, and I appreciate your tone with me so very much! I think we’re closer to each other than appeared so at first. I like that. By the way, we are homeschoolers, too, so you and I have something else in common! (Gordon is, as well. Who would have thought that we would end up having so many homeschool dads on here?! This isn’t even my homeschool blog!! hehe)
Gordon (and Tony, too), Neither of you guys have ever made me feel questioned here. In fact, I wasn’t even referring to anyone on this blog. Gordon, you probably know a few of the people I’m referring to, but the interaction here on this blog has always been superb! (As long as I don’t get into rapture topics….hehe!!)
In fact, it is the fact that guys like you two (and Ray, who I don’t see around here too much anymore
and Earl, etc.) who keep me encouraged in asking the questions I’m asking without falling into the fear that many would try to convey. In some circles, even just mentioning the idea of reconsidering the importance (not necessarily the validity) of things like the sufficiency of Scripture or the virgin birth (even if you guys aren’t so thrilled about me asking the questions!) would bring an abrupt end to any interaction.
So thank you all, and please know how much appreciation and gratitude comes through this blog back to you guys!
By the way, Gordon, I hope you’re better at following through on “coming to get me” than that certain centurion you mentioned!
He never did come back and get me, and the last time I sent him an email asking for some clarification on points of tension between us, the sole response was, “Steve, you amuse me.” I haven’t tried since.
Oh, and one more “by the way”, Gordon, even though my potential trip to Florida in February is not happening now, we would really like to work out a weekend to drive down and visit with you and fellowship with the body that you’re a part of there. I’d even be happy to minister in music, if you want, but I promise I won’t say anything controversial to your people!!!
hehe But more importantly, we would just like to fellowship with you in person when we can work it out.
steve
OK, just for Bob, I’ve disabled the anti-spam measure for now until I can work out the issues. (We aim to please at this blog!!)
But, if I get even just one single spam comment, it’s going right back on, whether I’ve worked out the issues or not!
So consider yourself warned, Bob
Spam – you’re it!
Good point about Paul – he does seem to balance believing and doing.
Now I shall press “Post”
Steve,
My spirit is willing to contribute, but my time is limited.
)
You ask:
1. A person of small intellect (either a young child, or someone with reduced mental capacity) expresses faith in Jesus to the extent at which they understand it.
2. This same person later is presented with a doctrinal teaching that is not explicit in Scripture (i.e., the virgin birth [quibble, Matt 1:18-24;Luke 1:26-38 explicitly state the virgin birth] ).
3. This person, for whatever reason, has some doubts as to the way in which the virgin birth is articulated and emphasized, and decides that they’re not convinced of it.
Now we are left with a couple of options:
1. Assume they were never saved to begin with.
2. Assume they are still saved, but with something of an asterisk next to their name
3. Assume that this doctrine under consideration is not absolutely essential, and therefore be willing to leave that decision up to God.
——
My thoughts are:
1. Given their level of ability and understanding, do they know who Christ is?
2. We look for a credible profession of faith. Do they rely on Christ for their salvation?
For membership in the church, we look to a few basics, the essentials of the faith, that without the essentials, they do not comprehend who Christ is and how God is.
If a person were to later doubt the virgin birth, we would encourage that person to study, but that alone would not be a reason to assume the person is not a Christian. This kind of thing, with the expressed doubts on things like the virgin birth, does happen to members in our church from time to time.
If a person were to deny the divinity of Christ, we would gently admonish that person to consider the Scriptures. If the person persisted in public denial of Christ’s divinity, then the person would be admonished, again gently as possible, by the elder board of the church. Depending on the person’s response, the elders may bar the person from participating in communion, because it would be meaningless without knowing Christ was divine, for their protection (because of the illness and other things Paul warns about) and possibly the longing for communion would help them think.
… I am out of time now, to be continued…
Earl,
I have enjoyed your interaction with these posts. I would just like to comment on the last thing that you said.
You said:
For membership in the church, we look to a few basics, the essentials of the faith, that without the essentials, they do not comprehend who Christ is and how God is.
What are those essentials? If they are indeed essential to someone’s salvation, then how can a person decide not to intially embrace them, but instead come to do so later on? If they really are essential to salvation, wouldn’t someone fail to embrace salvation apart from understanding and believing these truths? Can any of us really say that we comletely “comprehend who Christ is and how God is”? If not, then who decides how much we need to understand in order to be assured of salvation? From who/where do we compile our list of essentials? Thanks for your interaction. It is a pleasure to dialogue with patient and loving people:)
Raborn,
I think you are asking three questions:
(1) What are the essential beliefs for the faith?
(2) How can someone not initially embrace them and come to do so later on?
(3) Who decides on these matters?
For now, I am not going to provide an exaustive list of the essentials (I was just awaken to service a system problem from work at 3:30 am — I’m a bit foggy). But these are the Triune nature of God, God’s holiness, our sin, Christ’s death on the cross as the payment for our sin, our reliance on Christ’s death for salvation.
How can someone not initially embrace it? Personally, I see faith in Christ is a God generated thing. God calls the individual, the person awakes and comes running to God in faith. That person hears God’s voice, and God will never leave that person. That can happen to someone very young, such as a three year old. It can happen to a mentally retarded. To those individuals, the capacity to understand is limited compared to a mature person. As a normal three year old matures, and is instructed, who belongs to God, the Holy Spirit will speak to them and they will recognize God’s voice, and they will be drawn to the essentials of the faith.
Who decides how much is needed to know for the assurance of salvation? Ultimately that is God who decides. Assurance ultimately comes from God. God will also use human agents, and the usual human agents are the pastors/teachers/elders in a church, who prayerfully pastor all those under their care.
I’m going to bed. Given the fogginess of my mind, I don’t know if this will make sense.
Earl, I haven’t even finished reading your thoughts, but you caught a very big error in my comment that I wanted to acknowledge!!
I was copying and pasting from a question I asked you before, in which I had referenced the Trinity. I changed it to the virgin birth, but left in the part about “not explicitly”…..wooooooops!!!
I stand corrected on that. Thanks for catching that.
Now I’ll go read what you actually wrote in response…
steve
Earl,
You said:
For now, I am not going to provide an exaustive list of the essentials…But these are the Triune nature of God, God’s holiness, our sin, Christ’s death on the cross as the payment for our sin, our reliance on Christ’s death for salvation.
My question is this, if these things are essential (essential meaning completely necessary in order to be recognized as a member in the Body of Christ?), how can one be saved before embracing these doctrines? My point is this, how much of the truth must we label essential? Shouldn’t an “exhaustive” list of the essential truths of salvation be short and simple enough so that the three year old you mentioned can embrace Christ? If not, then how can we say that this same child is saved, if indeed more truths are essential to salvation than this child can grasp (completely necessary in order to be saved)?
By the way, welcome to the later-nighters club! Sorry you had to join it by force!
Steve, you said:
See, I’m not sure that practically speaking there’s a whole lot of difference between someone “questioning†a doctrine, and someone “denying†the same doctrine.
I see a major difference between the two. Let me explain. Over the last few years I have been involved in a process by which I have been re-examining everything I believe and practice, to determine whether it is truly biblical or mere tradition. At some point, I have “questioned” nearly every major doctrine that would be considered “orthodox”. I did not enter this process looking for something new, I simply wanted to come to the place where I believe what I believe because I believe it and not because someone else does. From what I can gather, you are in a similar process yourself and I hope it is as profitable for you as it is for me.
On the other hand, if someone were to “deny” the virgin birth, they would have to openly contradict the Scripture. My point on this is that if they do not feel they can trust the Word of God to accurately describe the incarnation of Christ, how can they trust it to accurately report the resurrection and thus their only means of salvation?
I draw a distinction between the doctrines of the virgin birth and the trinity. While I do hold fast to the trinity, (even its codified form), I realize that it is not as obviously stated in scripture as is the virgin birth. A person could still believe in the deity of Christ without accepting the trinity on the same level as I do.
Like you, I believe in a “short list” for salvation. I just believe that the virgin birth is an essential part of who Christ is.
Also, we would love have y’all come down and visit and play in the church. I’ll have my people contact your people and…
Wait a minute, I AM my people.
Anyway, y’all come!
Raborn,
In one sense I have no minimal list. God can choose to bring a person to life as he wishes. For instance, I saw evidence that one of my daughters had a crisis moment at the age of three. She heard us read the story of Jesus’ trial and death, and crying she, she kept saying, “poor Jesus.” When then told her the reaon Jesus died, it was because of the bad things Daddy did, Mommy did, and what she did. I can still see her wide eyes, still processing all of it. We asked her if she wanted to tell Jesus she was sorry. She did not want to at that moment, but a few days later, she told my wife she wanted to tell Jesus she was sorry.
I think that was the moment she placed her faith in Christ. Repentance and faith are close companions. Did my daughter believe all the things in my minimal list at that moment? No. But as she grew in knowledge and understanding, she did understand these things, such as the Trinity, the diety of Christ.
As the Dad who played a part in shepherding my daughter, I saw what looked like the genuine article of faith. But, I’m not God, I couldn’t say for certain what happened. But I know that those who truely belong to God will hear his voice. They will grow in faith, grow in wisdom and knowledge. In time she would, if she really belonged to Christ, express her faith that included the minimal amount that is included in sound doctrine. If, over time, she did not, then that would be evidence that what happened when she was three was not true conversion to Christ.
I was grateful to God to see all the initial evidence I had seen when she was three, to be further confirmed as she grew and confessed more of her faith. This particular daughter would come to express some deeply profound thoughts about God and Christ, at very early ages, more so than our other children, who also had placed their faith in Christ.
So, in answer to your question, it’s no and yes.
)
No, because we can’t see into the heart of the littlist. Yes, because as they grow, we can see evidence of their faith in Christ as expressed in the list of essential beliefs.
I appreciated the real-life picture, Earl. It helps to illustrate that the differing perspectives disussed here are not in conflict. That is, what minimal understanding constitutes having received Jesus, and thus salvation; contrasted with, what do we require of someone as the basis for fellowship.
I have to completely agree that belief in the virgin birth is a function of believing in the deity of Christ, yet salvation is not achieved by holding or not holding belief in the Father causing a miraculous pregnancy in a human, Mary. However, since “salvation” is a state that results from acceptance of the supernatural–the death of Christ leading to His resurrection–we generally accept as Christians that our fellow Christians have faith in the supernatural aspects of God, virgin birth included. Yet as Earl has demonstrated, an initial and/or developing experience of God need not be based on an understanding and acceptance of the virgin birth.
Kansas Bob reminded us of the all important 18 inches between head and heart. Would we not fellowship with someone who does not fully affirm the virgin birth is a question we must each consider. Is Paul’s confrontation of Peter over his withdrawal from fellowship with gentile believers over Jewish tradition not an example of this dynamic? Jesus ate with sinners and publicans. Why exclude someone professing Christ, but who is not fully mature for whatever reason?
Steve raises this question, I suspect, because evidences of exclusion within the larger cultural expression of Christianity are many. In doing so, he causes us to think about how should a body of believers behave. I know of a dear sister who manisfested much fruit of the spirit of Christ. Still, she was excluded from one of our local, large and widely respected evangelical denominational churches. She had questioned openly the “doctrine” of the trinity in a Sunday school discussion, not because she doubted in the deity of Father, Son or Holy Spirit but because the Scriptures never use the term “Trinity.” Thus she wondered why the term could be the basis for doctrine. She was basically told either accept and confess the doctrine or she was not welcome.
The issue it seems to me is the line between dogmatism and dedication. I think we generally regard holding onto a Truth (capital T to designate that which we hold to be more than human opinion but fact of God and His Kingdom) from Scripture is a characteristic of dedication. When situations such as the one described above occur, do we generally see that failing 1 Cor. 13 love toward others in the name of our dedication to the Word as dogmatism? I see Steve basically asking will we regard dogmatism as “sound doctrine”?
The issue isn’t whether or not we should be believers in the virgin birth as part of sound doctrine. The issue is whether or not we will love people as a function of our sound doctrine.
ded, wow! I have more I would like to say at this point, but I’m going to be spending some time with my wife instead of with you all this afternoon.
However, until I get back to take care of Gordon (hehe) and some other comments I want to make, I want to say that ded has really encapsulated my intentions and purpose in asking these questions.
Thank you for reading my mind, dear brother!
So, I would like to say that I really enjoy reading everyone’s perspective here, especially Gordon talking about ‘questioning’ what is scriptural and what is tradition.
Gordon,
A bit of a postscript here to my last entry. Were I responsible for teaching the unlearned about Jesus, how could the virgin birth be overlooked? I woulld never attmept such. I agree with you, it is too closely linked to the whole of what God did in sending Jesus to us.
Yet, I would never reject someone who was confused or undecided. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says that those with a pure heart will see God. Who is pure but Jesus? Therefore, I conclude, only those who are in Jesus will grasp all of God. Could someone not have Jesus when he or she says, “I know Him?” God knows for sure. I can’t answer that one. Cetrtainly if someone doesn’t really have Jesus, will that not sort itself out over time? Lacking belief in the virgin birth may be evidence of lack of understanding, lack of faith or even simple lack of Jesus. I can’t judge that in someone.
Ded, I agree with you. That’s what I have been trying to say in my comments on this topic.
That is why I draw such a strong distinction between “questioning” and “denying”. I believe that if a person possesses saving faith, in time that faith will lead them to the truth and full understanding of who Jesus is.
Accepting the truth of the virgin birth is a matter of faith. There are times when an individual’s faith may not yet be strong enough to grasp the reality of it, and yet they may indeed be saved. This person does not need to be rejected and I do not believe that we have a scriptural mandate to do so. This person needs the compassionate, patient teaching of one who is mature enough in the faith to believe it.
In my mind, one who denies the veracity of the virgin birth, though, is one who has come to the conclusion that it cannot be and is not true. This person must blatantly and deliberately contradict what the Bible says about the matter.
I would definitely be concerned about the spiritual condition of such a person.
Gordon, I think I understand what you’re saying about the difference between questioning and denying. And I don’t disagree.
What I was trying to get across, is that when someone is questioning a particular doctrine, they may not be comfortable affirming that same doctrine, which then appears to others to be a denial.
This is what I have experienced several times in my discussions about the doctrine of the Trinity. When I have used language that indicates I am not fully comfortable with a particular wording of a definition (i.e., Athanasian), I am referred to, then, as someone who “denies” the doctrine of the Trinity.
So when I said that “practically speaking” there wasn’t much difference, I was referring to the way in which that person is treated.
I don’t know if that helps clear things up any, and I have to run to my next appointment, but I’ll be back later this afternoon to type more.
steve
Steve, I have found that often when you receive the kind of treatment to which you are referring, it is because somebody is insecure in their theology. Maybe they simply believe it because that is what they have been told to believe or just merely assumed it to be true.
But if I go any further with this train of thought I might stray into judging and I don’t want to do that.
Gordon, I suspect you have a great point there!
All the more reason for us each to examine our own doctrine and theology and come to these conclusions for ourself so that we don’t look down on others who are questioning things that perhaps we are too afraid or insecure to question ourselves, huh?
steve