"Easy-beievism"

[preacher4truth]

In regard to the term "easy" how does this relate to true saving faith? It would seem logical that the cause or source or origin of true saving faith must be first established in order to rationally deal with this very designation "easy."

Is saving faith "easy" so that there are no obstacles such as "no man can come to me except the father draw them." Is saving faith "easy" meaning every human being has inherent ability to believe? Is saving faith "easy" so that no creative work of God is essential to its origin or existence as in 2 Cor. 4:6? How is this off topic or derailing this thread? The only way I can rationally see bringing in the subject of "cause" is (1) you don't want to deal with the term "easy" and/or (2) you want to close this thread to all Calvinists??? Is that the case?

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Exactly, and this is why I posed my question which no one will even dare answer.

 

[The Biblicist]

Of course that way you can turn it into a cal thread

Is this thread only for non-cal's? How are you going to have any rational discussion of the term "easy" if you exclude the Calvinistic view of faith or if Calvinistic writers are going to distinguish true saving faith from "easy" believism?

 

[preacher4truth]

Is this thread only for non-cal's? How are you going to have any rational discussion of the term "easy" if you exclude the Calvinistic view of faith or if Calvinistic writers are going to distinguish true saving faith from "easy" believism?

Yup. See, we are Calvinists which lends this to BB: whenever we answer now we can be accused of turning a thread into cal/arm simply because our views are Calvinistic or our Scriptural view is deemed Calvinist, so no matter what we say we can be accused of this.

Nothing I said in my initial post said a word about Calvinism, I was simply assailed because I am one and because I addressed the OP.

 

[The Biblicist]

In regard to the term "easy" how does this relate to true saving faith? It would seem logical that the cause or source or origin of true saving faith must be first established in order to rationally deal with this very designation "easy."

Is saving faith "easy" so that there are no obstacles such as "no man can come to me except the father draw them." Is saving faith "easy" meaning every human being has inherent ability to believe? Is saving faith "easy" so that no creative work of God is essential to its origin or existence as in 2 Cor. 4:6? How is this off topic or derailing this thread? The only way I can rationally see bringing in the subject of "cause" is (1) you don't want to deal with the term "easy" and/or (2) you want to close this thread to all Calvinists??? Is that the case?

Gentleman, can you not clearly see that the very term "easy" is the distinguishing term from true saving faith??? How can Calvinists who believe saving faith originates from a creative act of God even comment on this thread in direct regard to the term "easy" without first establishing the "cause" as something beyond mere human ability???? It would seem that you are demanding that Calvinist should not be able to respond directly to the very term that distinguishes true saving faith from "easy" believism???? Is that the point of this thread to forbid any Calvinist from defining why the distinguishing term "easy" is the real issue and why it is the real issue????

 

[DHK]

Is this thread only for non-cal's? How are you going to have any rational discussion of the term "easy" if you exclude the Calvinistic view of faith or if Calvinistic writers are going to distinguish true saving faith from "easy" believism?

That being said, the thread is about "easy-believism."

For example: The jailer asked Paul: "What must I do to be saved?"
Paul answered, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved."

It appears that the Calvinist denies the veracity of that truth.
First, some here believe that "faith" in and of itself is a "work" a belief I don't hold--and this is derailing the thread.

Second, the subject at hand is what is the "faith" that the jailer had?
That is the subject here. Obviously it was a faith that saved him. It was not just a mental assent. It was done in obedience to a command. It came from the heart. It came with conviction.

The view of "what is faith" as held by certain Calvinists is really not up for discussion. It will only derail the thread. It has many times before. I think we have had our experience in such threads.
It is wiser to stick to the OP in this case.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Hm. As I suspected. Yet another Calvinist take-over of a thread. And the one who said, " ... nothing I've stated has a thing to do with Calvinism" has led the charge.

Let me explain how the original question I challenged is not relevant to the thread. As I said, Salty asked how one would define "easy-believism." Simply, it is emotionalism, or intellectualism, without heart-change. It is a prayer said without understanding. It is an aisle walked without direction. It has nothing to do with the source of faith, because it has nothing to do with faith at all. "Easy believism" is not salvation at all, is not belief at all, is not faith at all, but something well short of that.

The "source" of "easy believism" is self, led by conviction without knowledge.

Now, if you want to talk about what is referenced as "easy believism" but really is no such thing, then you can talk about the Source. But Salty didn't ask about what gets called "easy believism" around here. He asked what the definition of "easy believism" is, and that is something that is rarely defined with any legitimate accuracy on BB.

The use of the term "easy believism" around here makes it a derogatory term used by opponents of the view that one needs only to believe in Jesus in order to be saved. From this they conclude that those who hold to sola fide are saying that no corresponding need exists for a committed life of Christian discipleship as proof of salvation, but this is not true. Those who use the term "easy believism" are confusing justification -- the one-time act of being declared righteous by God -- with sanctification -- the lifelong process by which the justified believer is conformed to the image of Christ. Those who call salvation by faith "easy believism" miss the fact that true conversion will always result in sanctification and a life of good works.

Much of this debate is unnecessary and is based on a misunderstanding of the Scriptures. The Bible is clear that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. Rather than being saved by some easy act of our own wills, we are saved by the hand of God Almighty, by His will and for His use, through His empowering us to be something we could not otherwise be: Cooperative in the gospel, recognizing ourselves as sinners, and turning to the truth of the gospel as revealed to us by the Holy Spirit. We are His servants, and from the moment of salvation by faith, we embark on a journey of pre-ordained good works that are the evidence of that salvation. If there is no evidence of growth and good works, we have reason to doubt that salvation ever truly took place. Then, perhaps, the term "easy-believism" could be used, but it would have nothing to do with a source, because it has none, it is baseless, and comes from within.

 

[The Biblicist]

That being said, the thread is about "easy-believism."

For example: The jailer asked Paul: "What must I do to be saved?"
Paul answered, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved."

It appears that the Calvinist denies the veracity of that truth.

I do not deny that this is the proper response to the gospel as "believe" is found in the imperative mode. However, is it as "easy" as "easy believism" demands. This text does not address that question it only addresses the proper response.

Jesus plainly says "no man can come unto me EXCEPT" which shows it is not as "easy" as "easy believism demands.

First, some here believe that "faith" in and of itself is a "work" a belief I don't hold--and this is derailing the thread.

It is the work of God (Jn. 6:29; 44-45; 64-65) but it is not our work for sure. However, even this debate directly addresses how "easy" it is. If it is a work of man which any man can do at any time then of course it would be "easy" to do.

Second, the subject at hand is what is the "faith" that the jailer had?
That is the subject here.

I thought the OP was:

Exactaly how would you define "Easy-beievism"

On one hand, I would be cautious of "1-2-3- Repeat after me"

But on the other hand Salvation simply comes by believing in Grace thru Faith of the Lord -

Motion has been seconded - open for discussion

How can a Calvinist respond intelligently to such an OP without addressing "easy" and "1-2-3" when that contradicts the very essence of saving faith form a Calvinist perspective?

Where is Acts 16:30-31 even mentioned in the OP??? How would addressing the subject of "easy" derail this thread?

Obviously it was a faith that saved him. It was not just a mental assent. It was done in obedience to a command. It came from the heart. It came with conviction.

Would not stating that it "came from the heart" and "came with conviction" deal directly with source/cause/origin?

The view of "what is faith" as held by certain Calvinists is really not up for discussion. It will only derail the thread. It has many times before. I think we have had our experience in such threads.
It is wiser to stick to the OP in this case.

I don't really understand how dealing with the cause of saving faith can be divorced from "easy" believism which is the essence of the OP "1-2-3". I understand how a thread can be derailed to defend Calvinism as a system but I don't understand how denying that true saving faith is not "easy" as represented in the OP. However, I will drop it as I think I have said all I can say to this point and I am not a "moderator."

 

[Winman]

Exactaly how would you define "Easy-beievism"

Trusting, relying, or depending on Jesus Christ alone to save you from your sins.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Trusting, relying, or depending on Jesus Christ alone to save you from your sins.

If so believing, is it "right" or "wrong", then, to consider one's self saved?

 

[Winman]

If so believing, is it "right" or "wrong", then, to consider one's self saved?

I'm not sure if I understand your question. I trusted Jesus to save me from my sins, and I believe according to God's word that I am saved.

I think it is right to consider myself saved. Anybody who sincerely calls upon Jesus to save him from his sins and depends only on Jesus should consider himself saved.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

I'm not sure if I understand your question. I trusted Jesus to save me from my sins, and I believe according to God's word that I am saved.

I think it is right to consider myself saved. Anybody who sincerely calls upon Jesus to save him from his sins and depends only on Jesus should consider himself saved.

You got it, but I don't think what you have is easy believism. There is life-change, heart-change, conviction. Easy believism is (I think) walking an aisle, saying a prayer, and going out for a cup of coffee. In other words, there's nothing there. I could be wrong, though.

 

[Winman]

You got it, but I don't think what you have is easy believism. There is life-change, heart-change, conviction. Easy believism is (I think) walking an aisle, saying a prayer, and going out for a cup of coffee. In other words, there's nothing there. I could be wrong, though.

If someone tells me they sincerely prayed and asked Jesus to save them, I tend to believe them. All I can go by is what a person confesses.

Folks in the Bible knew when they believed. Take the Ethiopian eunuch;

Acts 8:34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?
35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.
36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.

People in the Bible did not "wonder" if they believed, they knew they believed on Jesus. You don't see any promise here to turn from sin and lead a holy life, this Ethiopian eunuch believed the OT scriptures that Jesus had died on the cross for his sins and rose from the dead.

Another example is Acts 19;

Acts 19:2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

Again, people in the scriptures did not wonder if they believed on Jesus, they knew. And again, do you see these disciples promising to stop sinning and turn over a new leaf? No, they believed Paul's message that John the Baptist was preaching Jesus to them and they believed on Jesus and were baptized.

Examples in the scriptures seem pretty easy to me.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

You got it, but I don't think what you have is easy believism. There is life-change, heart-change, conviction. Easy believism is (I think) walking an aisle, saying a prayer, and going out for a cup of coffee. In other words, there's nothing there. I could be wrong, though.

Well Perhaps a starbucks is in order for this to happen:tongue3:

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

If someone tells me they sincerely prayed and asked Jesus to save them, I tend to believe them. All I can go by is what a person confesses.

Folks in the Bible knew when they believed. Take the Ethiopian eunuch;

Acts 8:34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?
35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.
36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.

People in the Bible did not "wonder" if they believed, they knew they believed on Jesus. You don't see any promise here to turn from sin and lead a holy life, this Ethiopian eunuch believed the OT scriptures that Jesus had died on the cross for his sins and rose from the dead.

Another example is Acts 19;

Acts 19:2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

Again, people in the scriptures did not wonder if they believed on Jesus, they knew. And again, do you see these disciples promising to stop sinning and turn over a new leaf? No, they believed Paul's message that John the Baptist was preaching Jesus to them and they believed on Jesus and were baptized.

Examples in the scriptures seem pretty easy to me.

Perhaps I haven't made myself clear. Sorry. Sometimes I don't have enough coffee. Particularly after walking an aisle and ... oh, never mind. :laugh:

I don't doubt one can sincerely believe, as you've described, "easily." What I was defining is what "easy believism" is, versus what is typically described on this forum as "easy believism." Many on here would say you engaged in it through sola fide. As I said, they don't believe "easy believism" entails sanctification, whereas I'm certain bonafide faith can, indeed come easily, but assuredly implies instant/positional, progressive/experiential and ultimate sanctification.

"Easy believism" is used as an epithet around here, by those who mistake justification for sanctification. They aren't the same thing.

 

[Winman]

Perhaps I haven't made myself clear. Sorry. Sometimes I don't have enough coffee. Particularly after walking an aisle and ... oh, never mind. :laugh:

I don't doubt one can sincerely believe, as you've described, "easily." What I was defining is what "easy believism" is, versus what is typically described on this forum as "easy believism." Many on here would say you engaged in it through sola fide. As I said, they don't believe "easy believism" entails sanctification, whereas I'm certain bonafide faith can, indeed come easily, but assuredly implies instant/positional, progressive/experiential and ultimate sanctification.

"Easy believism" is used as an epithet around here, by those who mistake justification for sanctification. They aren't the same thing.

Sorry I wasn't helpful. I thought examples of folks believing in the scriptures would be instructive. I am not sure what you are looking for now.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Sorry I wasn't helpful. I thought examples of folks believing in the scriptures would be instructive. I am not sure what you are looking for now.

Oh, I believe it is instructive also. I agree with you, was my point in replying. I'm not sure what the others are looking for, but I think some of them will have difficulty with your Scriptural points.

 

[quantumfaith]

Perhaps I haven't made myself clear. Sorry. Sometimes I don't have enough coffee. Particularly after walking an aisle and ... oh, never mind. :laugh:

I don't doubt one can sincerely believe, as you've described, "easily." What I was defining is what "easy believism" is, versus what is typically described on this forum as "easy believism." Many on here would say you engaged in it through sola fide. As I said, they don't believe "easy believism" entails sanctification, whereas I'm certain bonafide faith can, indeed come easily, but assuredly implies instant/positional, progressive/experiential and ultimate sanctification.

"Easy believism" is used as an epithet around here, by those who mistake justification for sanctification. They aren't the same thing.[/QUOTE]

:applause::applause::applause:

 

[Revmitchell]

Call it what you want but repentance is the change of mind and commitment to live according to God's ways. Without that there is no salvation.

 

[quantumfaith]

Call it what you want but repentance is the change of mind and commitment to live according to God's ways. Without that there is no salvation.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[pinoybaptist]

I don't see how you can rationally discuss what "easy believism" is and why it is wrong without first defining what is the true nature of saving faith? You cannot define the true nature of saving faith from a Calvinistic point of vew without defining its cause and effects simply because "easy believism" does not have the same cause or effect as true saving faith.

So to accuse someone of derailing this thread simply because they bring into this discussion the true nature of "repentance" like one writer did or the "cause" of faith like another writer did is really refusing to allow anyone to first define saving faith in regard to its essential characteristics in order to show what is wrong with "easy believism." Indeed, the issue of "cause" in regard to "easy" believism is a very critical characteristic to distinguish and define true saving faith from "easy" believism.

Likewise, the issue of repentance and rightly defining "repentance" and its relationship to faith is critical to properly defining true saving faith and distinguishing it from "easy believism." Indeed the very word "easy" calls for a critical examination of the cause of true saving faith in order to distinguish it from "EASY believism."

I totally agree.:thumbsup::thumbsup: