EFC Newsletter November, 2019

Posted on November 6, 2019 by Dr. John Oakes wrote in .

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

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:

The Bible teaches quite clearly that “Jesus is the only parameter to go to heaven.” This is not exactly what Peter said in Acts 4:12, but it is close. “Salvation is found in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.”

Your friend says that she does not like this, therefore she will not believe in Jesus. This is an interesting position to take. The idea is that if I do not like something I will not believe in it. Let us say that we do not like gravity. Therefore we do not believe in it. This philosophy will be hard to maintain if one steps off of a cliff. Someone says, “I do not like eating, therefore I will not eat.” Again, not a good idea. Let us suppose that what Peter said in Acts 4:12 were true. If so, then refusing to be a Christian because one does not like this is a possible option, but the results of not accepting Jesus because you do not like him would be an utter disaster. I understand the emotion your friend is feeling, but let us ask a common sense question: Should we let the fact that we do not like a particular fact about the world cause us to not believe that fact?

Since when did God have to do what we like? Who says that we get to determine what God should be like? If I do not like believing “in a religion that doesn’t give everyone a chance,” what if it were reality nevertheless? What if it were true? Then would rejecting this idea be a good idea? Is one willing to go to hell for eternity as a protest against a God that we do not agree with? Like God says in Romans 9:20, “Who are you, oh man, to talk back to God?” It is not a wise thing to thumb our nose at the actual God who exists because we do not agree with all aspects of his nature. In the end, we will give account to God. I believe that God is good–completely good, but even if there were some aspect of him that we do not like, surely we should honor the actual God who created us and gave us life!

From an emotional perspective, I can see why your friend is bothered by the fact that, until fairly recently, most people in India had a very limited exposure to Christianity, yet they will be judged in the end by things taught by Christians. On the face of it, this can appear unfair, and I get it. Yet, despite my quote above from Acts 4:12, and despite the fact that I believe Jesus is the only way to be saved, I still believe that God is just and fair. In fact, this is one of his attributes. I am convinced that we will be held to judgment based, not on what would do not know or what we have no access to, but to what we know and what we have access to. Romans 2:14-16, as you mention in your questions, points in that direction. Now, I am not God, and I am not in a position to say how many born in India in the year 535 BC will be “saved” in the end and will be in the new earth with God. I am not given access to that information. However, if we are not saved by Jesus, then we are judged according to our conscience, if I read Romans 2:12-14 correctly. In that case, I would MUCH rather be saved by obeying Christ than by coming before God based on whether I obeyed my moral conscience. In fact, even now as a believer, I do not always obey my conscience. Before I was a Christian, I violated my conscience an uncountable number of times. I definitely do not want to come before God on judgment day based on Romans 2:12-14. Yet, I believe that there may very well be some very “good” Hindus and Buddhists who might possibly be with God for eternity. However, even if they make it based on Romans 2:12-14, even then, it will only be through Jesus, who is the only name by which we can be saved, even if we do not know of him. Jesus, after all, is a lamb of God, killed, from God’s perspective, “from the foundation of the world.” (Revelation 13:8) From God’s perspective, Jesus has always been slain, so that Jews before Jesus can be with God in eternity, as may some non-Jews as well.

Here is the bottom line. Even if it is at least conceivably possible that one might make it to “heaven” through personal righteousness rather than through being a Christian, surely that likelihood is extremely small, whereas, if one becomes a Christian, then one is guaranteed salvation if one remains faithful (Ephesians 1:13-14). Wouldn’t it be far better to put our faith in Jesus than to hope for the best? Wouldn’t it be better to worship God the way he wants to be worshiped? What is the advantage of NOT being a Christian? None. Zero. Nada. My suggestion is that you not be swayed in your faith by the emotions you are feeling over this question.

Besides, the premise of your friend’s complaint is somewhat weak. Everyone in India knows about Jesus. Every single one. The days when people did not have access to Christianity, to Bibles and even to Christian churches have long passed for more than 95%, maybe even 98% of all people today. There is virtually no one left in the world today (which is all that really matters for us right now, after all) who does not have the opportunity to be saved by Jesus.

Your friend is hurt that those who do not believe in Jesus will not be saved. I understand and respect that emotion, but if it is true, then being hurt by the facts is worth mentioning, but it should not guide our actions. I understand the emotion, but nevertheless suggest that your friend do what is right, which is to believe in the actual, real God, which is the God of the Bible, and be saved by the blood of Jesus. Being swayed from truth by our emotions is not a good idea. The fact is that Jesus walked on water, healed the sick, raised Lazarus from the dead and calmed great storms. He fulfilled all the prophecies of the Messiah. He gave sufficient evidence that he is the Son of God.

If your faith has been diminishing this year, then I suggest you consider what God has done for you and decide today to let your faith be rekindled. God has loved you very much. God sent his one and only Son to die for you. Do not let yourself be sucked into the world. There is nothing good for you out there.

John Oakes

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?

Answer:

Ehrman is one of the greatest scholars we have today. He generally presents the facts truthfully and is willing to present evidence that disagrees with his thesis. This is all good, but Ehrman is an unbeliever and he has many rather obvious agendas that he brings to the table. His facts are generally good, but his conclusion are often wrong and often VERY wrong. So, you should read him with a very large grain of salt, despite his prowess as a biblical scholar.

What he says here is nearly accurate, but it is given in a highly prejudicial way. First of all, the statement implies that any Christian source is probably unbelievable, highly biased and should be rejected a priori. What is the reason for anyone to do this? Is there evidence that the writers of the New Testament were lying or were grossly exaggerating? What is that evidence? Is it relevant to note that those who wrote the gospels and the other New Testament documents were checked by people who were still alive who had seen the actual events, and that no Christian would allow a lie to enter into their scripture? Is it relevant that these men clearly believed what they wrote, since all of them were willing to die rather than admit any error or fraud? Ehrman simply ignores these questions and states a fact that is highly prejudicial against the reliability of the New Testament.

And what he says is not even correct, although it is nearly correct. Josephus wrote about 70 years after the events, not 80 years. Also, there is a man named Thallus who wrote in the 50’s AD about the darkness that came over the land, explaining that is was in fact a solar eclipse. Ehrman ignores him because he is quoted by another author in the third century and we do not have the original, but, nevertheless he is technically wrong a second time due to this example.

The fact is that the Christian movement was fairly small in the first century–perhaps totaling fifty to one hundred thousand in the Roman world. We do not have a lot of writing from this period and we can assume that an unlimited variety of things happened that are not recorded by Roman or Jewish authors. However, the life of Jesus is actually noted by dozens of authors in the first century. although all but two of them we know were believers. That is true. By the early part of the second century, when Christianity began to be a force to be reckoned with, probably passing well beyond 100,000 members, then Romans take quite a bit of note of them.

Ehrman states that Jesus is not mentioned by a single Greek historian. This is an error. Luke is clearly a trained historian, given his approach to his gospel and Acts, and he was Greek. Of course, Ehrman ignores Luke, as he does all Christians, despite any qualifications they might have. He also says that there were no Greek religious scholars who mention Jesus. What about Paul? He is clearly a well-qualified religious scholar, as he was trained by Gamaliel, the greatest Jewish teacher of his day. Again, Ehrman, in his biased way, ignores Paul. He says that the name Jesus is not found in any correspondence. What about the correspondence between Paul and Timothy? Was that not correspondence? Again, the rather obvious bias of Ehrman comes out here. Christians do not count in his mind.

Ehrman makes the logical fallacy of using lack of evidence for evidence of lack. That he is using a period in the ancient past makes this particularly problematic. And besides he wants us to ignore the Christian testimony which is considerable and which, as far as we know, was extremely reliable, given the historical reliability of Luke, for example. What is Ehrman trying to imply? That Jesus did not exist? That Peter and John are lying about his miracles? If he has a thesis he ought to state it. Instead, he publishes a nearly true statement and lets the implications remain unknown so as to spread doubt among believers. I do not appreciate this at all, despite my admiration of the scholarship of Ehrman. My response is that his comments do not undermine reasonable faith in the Jesus of the Bible one tiny bit. Ehrman has an insidious agenda, which should not be ignored by either believer or non-believer.

Again, what he says is true, mostly, but not actually completely true. But the unstated things he implies are flat out false. You can trust the New Testament much more than Ehrman.

John Oakes