EFC Newsletter November, 2019
This newsletter will feature some recent Q & As, an announcement about an upcoming conference and more
Website Upgrade
We have recently completed some upgrades to the web site. After much delay, we are finally https, not http which means that we have a higher level of security. Some of you have tried to become members at $32/year but were unable to or were unwilling to with our lower level of security. If so, please consider becoming a member of EFC today. If you do so, you will gain access to hundreds of audio lessons and you will have the blessing of helping to support this valuable ministry.
Also, the site is now loading quite a bit faster. A number of other upgrades will be coming soon, including better access to power points, and more. Stand by. Of course, such upgrades do cost money, which is another reason to consider becoming a member or going to the site and click on the make a donation link. Thanks so much.
Conversations: Exploring the Teaching Ministry
The ICOC teachers invite you to our first annual teaching ministry conference. It will be Friday and Saturday, March 6-7, 2020 at the Oblate School of Theology in San Antonio, Texas. This conference is for anyone who is now doing the work of a teacher in our churches or anyone who aspires to be a teacher in the future. The conference will provide both inspiration to deepen our own spiritual lives and practical insight into how to build our local teaching ministries. We will also be exploring our narrative, past, present and future. Teachers include Steve Kinnard, Gordon Ferguson, Kay McKean, Suzette Lewis, Doug Jacoby, John Oakes, Gregg Marutzky, Ed and Deb Anton and many more. To register or get more information, including a conference schedule, go to https://www.icocteachersconference.com/
New Material at the Web Site
There is quite a bit of new material at the web site we invite you to check out.
A new class on the Book of Revelation by Dr. John Oakes
A series of sermons on the topic of Life In Christ by Dr. John Oakes
A recent workshop in San Diego on the Book of Hebrews by Dr. John Oakes
A number of lessons in both English and Spanish given in a recent teaching weekend in Puebla and Tlaxcala, Mexico.
A series of lessons from the Book of James by Dr. John Oakes
Also, John Oakes has two brand new books coming out from Illumination Publishers. Both will be available within one month. The first is Hebrews: Living by Faith The second is In Christ. Both should be available for purchase within just a couple of weeks at www.ipibooks.com.
I am including a few recent questions and answers below.
John Oakes
11/5/2019
Recent Questions and Answers:
Question:
Please could you clarify the doctrine of original sin? Some say there is such a thing as original sin and some deny this. Why is it that believers, theologians and Bible students are unable to have a single conclusion about original sin? Please help me with my doubts about this. 1. What is the difference between inheriting a sinful nature and inheriting sin from Adam? I presume that inheriting sinful nature is different from bearing the sin of another. 2. Did Jesus come to redeem us totally from a sinful nature and from sins or only to redeem us from the sins that we have committed? 3. Is it plausible that having a sinful nature is also a sin. We see Job was perfect in his days. Did he not inherit a sinful nature? Was it his sinful nature that motivated Job to commit sin? Please provide me with a profound answer. Thank you…..
Answer:
The idea of Original Sin is false doctrine. The idea that human beings are born already guilty of someone else’s sin is not only false doctrine, it does dishonor to the God of the Bible. This would mean that we are held accountable and punished for a sin that we did not commit. Ezekiel 18:4 says that “the one who sins is the one who will die.” Ezekiel 18:19-20 says that the son does not inherit the sin of the father and the father does not inherit the sin of the son. There are many other passages which state unambiguously that we will be held accountable for what we have done, but not for what others have done when it comes to judgment. Another passage we could use is 2 Corinthians 5:10 which tells us that “we will all appear before God’s judgment seat to receive what is due us for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.” I would argue that we do not really even need a specific passage that tells us that we will only be held responsible for our own acts, because God is a just God and to hold someone responsible for a sin committed by another, such as the sin of Adam is a violation of every conceivable rule of justice.
One would be tempted to ask where this outrageous idea of Original Sin came from. It goes back to the fourth century. It is debatable that Augustine created this idea, but he is the one who made it normative for Western Christianity. He was trying to explain why infants need to be baptized, and to explain why we have a sinful nature. He made the mistake of explaining it by claiming we are born steeped in sin. The problem with this is that Augustine was trying to explain an unbiblical practice–infant baptism.
The tragedy is that this doctrine of Original Sin formed the basis for the equally false doctrine of Total Depravity (that we are totally helpless to choose to obey God), Unconditional Election (If God elects you to be saved, you will be saved whether you want to or not), Limited Atonement (the most terrible of all the doctrines of Calvinism, which proposes that Jesus only died for the elect, and all others were selected by God for hell) and Preservation of the Saints (one cannot lose one’s salvation if saved).
You ask why people are unable to come to a single conclusion with regard to Original Sin? I suppose you should ask Augustine or John Calvin. The Bible is clear on this. It is not confusing. I could list some possible “explanations.” One is that Augustine overemphasized God’s sovereignty above his love and his justice. Another is that he was influenced by his background as a Manichee (a dualistic religion which proposes that physical things are evil). Another possible cause is that he had to explain a second false practice, which was infant baptism. Each person who chooses to accept this false doctrine probably has a different reason and you should ask those individuals. The fact is that there are false beliefs about Christianity out there, and this is not because God has not been clear.
Next you ask about the idea of having a sinful nature. Here the Bible gives us suggestions but is not as definitive as it is on the question of Original Sin. It seems that Adam and Eve were somehow different when they rebelled and ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Possibly, what we inherit from Adam and Eve is the knowledge of good and evil, not their sin, and it is this knowledge which produces in what is sometimes in the Bible called our “sinful nature” or our “fleshly nature,” or simply the “flesh.” This knowledge is not sin, but it brings a propensity to sin. You could say, “What is the difference?” There is a big difference. Children are born innocent and if they die while still innocent, then they will not be condemned to hell. Like Paul says, “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” All who reach the age of accountability do eventually sin. This is a fact found in the Bible and found from our human experience. This inevitable tendency is given the name “sinful nature.” I do not claim to have a precise understanding of exactly how this fleshly nature works, but I know that we have it.
Jesus came to save us from our sin and to help us to deal with our sinful nature. Our sin is removed, but our sinful nature is only changed and reduced, but not eliminated. This is explained in Romans 6 and Romans 8. Paul tells us that outside of Christ we are virtually helpless before sin. We are completely enslaved to it. But when we have the Holy Spirit we no longer have to sin. We are no longer compelled to sin. Yet, we do still sin, which proves that we still have a sinful nature, but that this nature is less powerful. Again, EXACTLY how this works I cannot say.
No!!! Having a sinful nature is not sin! James 1:13-15 shows that our sinful nature causes us to sin, but it does not force us to sin! And, like I said, children inherit a sinful nature which is awakened when they reach the age of accountability. Job, like all humans, had a sinful nature and he sinned. God saw him as righteous, just as he saw Noah as righteous, but neither were sinless. I hope this helps.
John Oakes
Question:
My friend asks if Jesus is the only parameter to get to heaven. Not everyone gets to know Jesus like some do in their privilege. So she finds it hard to believe in a religion that doesn’t give everyone a chance. When she asks how the people prior to Jesus were saved, she was told by a Christian guy that Abraham was told about the promised Messiah, and people at that time were saved by believing in it. If that’s the case, don’t you think a lot of people from the past are in hell just because of they were deprived of this information? There were barely any Jews in the Indian subcontinent and the Far East at that time. If only Jews were given the prior knowledge about the Messiah, then don’t you think it’s quite unfair? In Romans 2:14-16, Paul talks about how the Gentiles without the law are saved when they do by nature what the law requires. But then what is the necessity of Jesus if people could be saved that way? As you know, I’m from India and I’ve got plenty of friends with other beliefs and it pains me to think that if Christianity is true, they’re all going to hell due to its exclusivity. Due to this, I must admit that my faith in Christianity has been diminishing gradually this year.
Response:
Question:
Scholar Bart D. Ehrman says that we have very scanty evidence and documentation of Jesus’ life. Bart D. Ehrman says that Jesus is never mentioned in any Greek or Roman, non-Christian sources until 80 years after his death. There is no record of Jesus having lived in these sources. In the entire first Christian century Jesus is not mentioned by a single Greek or Roman historian, religion scholar, politician, philosopher or poet. His name never occurs in a single inscription and it is never found in a single piece of private correspondence zero, zip references. In other words, there is no non-Christian evidence from the first century of a “historical Jesus.” Is Bart D. Ehrman right? If so, does that undermine the credibility of the Christianity and our faith?