Homer wrote:But if one is a "babe" in Christ they could be in sin due to ignorance.
Agreed. That is possible at least for a time, I think.
Homer wrote:And this brings about the argument about what the Spirit can accomplish apart from the Word. And then this brings us to doctrine. We (the church) are collectively charged with making disciples, "teaching them to obey everything I commanded you". That which is taught is doctrine,a word scorned in some circles.
The word "doctrine" is often scorned by some, including me, the way it is normally used today. But you define it correctly, I think, as "that which is taught/instructed," and I don't scorn that at all. We really need doctrine in that sense, which is the biblical sense, I think.
As for an argument about what the Spirit can accomplish apart from the Word, I am not aware of that argument. But we could just limit ourselves to a bit of Scripture: "The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control."
Homer wrote:So the question I would pose is would the Holy Spirit convict someone of sin if they were ignorant of the teaching that a particular behavior was sinful?
That is an important part of this issue (when to divide from those who call themselves Christians), imo. I would answer, yes. I think the Holy Spirit will still produce that fruit in any believer, which would convict that person of his or her sin, though not necessarily all in an instant.
Homer wrote:Today we have a dilemma in that the doctrine of some, who claim the name of Christ, teaches that gay sex is not sin in some circumstances. This is a matter of opinion about what is acceptable behavior. So in this case we have two sinful behaviors, IMO, false teaching and fornicating. And for those with "itching ears" in this circumstance, would there be any conviction of sin by the Spirit?
That is a good example. My own brief answer to that question is, yes. If there is no conviction or repentance after gentle correction and instruction and church discipline, then we should have nothing to do with that person (as part of the church). It would seem that such a person does not have the Spirit of Christ and should at least not be
treated as a brother, though there is some question in my mind as to that person's condition (1 Cor 5:5).) That is a difficult thing to do for me, but it is what we're instructed.
That is entirely different from some non-behavioral theological dispute. As a random example, a person may be of the opinion that the Father has a physical body like us. That may be a wrong opinion, but it's not an opinion that the Bible says damns a person, to my knowledge. As long as he or she is not divisive about it, then I won't be divisive about it either.