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

But if I go any further with this train of thought I might stray into judging and I don’t want to do that.

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

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

Wait a minute, I AM my people.

Anyway, y’all come!