From: cnc405@bnr.ca (Charles (C.F.) Board)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Virgin Birth Essential? (was Re: southern baptists..
Date: 15 Sep 92 06:43:01 GMT

In article <Sep.12.23.30.05.1992.12842@athos.rutgers.edu> richard Pitts writes:
In article <Sep.11.00.11.04.1992.16227@athos.rutgers.edu> cnc405@bnr.ca (Charles (C.F.) Board) writes:
>In article <Sep.10.03.40.27.1992.24196@athos.rutgers.edu> Richard Pitts said:
>
>>>If one can't produce good argument and the issue is not essential, then
>>>I can see your point, but most of the issues I've seen/heard seem to 
>>>fall into the category of essential (e.g., the Scriptures being the Word
>>>of God, the Virgin Birth of Christ, the Deity of Christ, His resurrection,
>         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>etc.)
>
>>Just curious as to how you can place the Virgin Birth doctrine in the "essential"
>>category. Keep in mind that Paul managed to "create" Christianity without
>>relying on it and the earliest Gospeler saw no need to mention it! Clearly, it
>>cannot be considered an ESSENTIAL teaching based on the New Testament. 

>Keep in mind that you and others have "created" Paul as the creator of
>Christianity.  Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles.  He said he did not
>preach himself, but Jesus as Lord, and he and his group as servants 2 Cor 4:5.
> [comments on 1 Cor 15 and moderator's remarks deleted]

I knew the use of "created" would get me in trouble. My meaning was to refer
to Paul as the first "theologer" of Christianity. the point I was trying
to make is that both the first "biographer" and the firt "theologian" of
Christianity did NOT consider the virgin birth to be an ESSENTIAL doctrine
of Christianity. In fact,there really is no convincing evidence that they'd 
even heard of it. [I'm NOT arguing here that the doctrine is false, though I 
could easily do so. just that the biblical evidence gives good reason NOT to
consider it essential] It seems to me that given that, the Southern Baptist 
leadership's stance on this issue is extremely harsh. 

I don't want to deceive you, I am an atheist. But I grew up in a Southern
Baptist church and am still an absentee member for a couple of reasons 
(not wanting to hurt my family and wanting to stay in contact with some of
the finest people I know). I actually planned on being a minister until, at
age 15, I realized that there was no way to reconcile the virgin birth stories
given in Matt. & Luke.  That led me to look at other doctrines from a 
different, more skeptical viewpoint - eventually leading me to conclude that
there were no rational grounds for believing (and plenty for disbelieving)
any of the main tenets of Christianity. 

Given that the dogmatic insistence(sp?) in the virgin birth was the direct
cause of my leaving Christianit, I got an ironic chuckle a few months ago
when the church newletter came. the pastor's column described (and approved
of) the SBC's decision to cut off funding of a (European?) seminary - 
primarily because they were teaching students to view the VB doctrine 
skeptically. 

In short, I think that your view that the SBC is only trying to force 
agreement on "essential" views is wrong - these guys may see it that way, but
only if THEY are allowed to say WHAT is "essential".