Easy-Believism

[Winman]

No Brother Wes. Believing on Jesus as your/mine/their Saviour is a work of God. Most people don't truly believe a loving God, a "God of love", would ever toss them into eternal torment. If God doesn't override their notion(s), they'll never change on their own accord.

Look at it like this. I am not using the "dead as a corpse" ideology, but "dead to righteousness" ideology. There are people, both straight and gay, who do not believe homosexuality is a sin. They don't. I have a twitter account, and one of the guys I follow on there, who is with football...can't remember his name now, stated it wasn't a sin. I should have unfollowed him right there, but sadly, I didn't...but any hoo... Then there's pologamy, and those who don't think it's a sin, either. God has to override this in order for them to truly sin how sinful pologamy and homosexuality is.

You are closer to my/our view when you posted this....




This is exactly what Christ did, and does. In your view, you jump up from the defendant's table and plead your case with Him. You stated numerous times that sinners cooperate with their salvation. So in your view, you are not only the defendant, but also a co-attorney. Please do not taking this as me being offensive, because I am not...just my observation....raying: :saint:

Give me a break Willis, I just described trusting Christ as letting a lawyer handle your case, you sit there and don't say a word, and now you are telling me I was saying you get all involved and argue the case???????

Go back and read what I said again, you read the exact opposite of what I really wrote.

And I guess you think an unconscious person lying on an operating table is also performing his own surgery???

Like I said Willis, there is no way we can agree.

 

[convicted1]

I don't know Willis, if you think lying on an operating table completely unconscious while a surgeon operates on you is working, then we simply have different definitions for the word "work".

There is no need to go further, we can never agree.

No, Brother Wes. We don't work to garner salvation. God does the work for us. He quickens, He draws, He sends the gospel, He causes us to believe. It's 100% Him and 0% us....

Romans 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

John 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them."(Eph. 2:8-10)

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ."(2 Thess. 2:13,14)

Jer. 31:18 I have surely heard Ephraim bemoaning himself thus; Thou hast chastised me, and I was chastised, as a bullock unaccustomed to the yoke: turn thou me, and I shall be turned; for thou art the Lord my God.

Acts 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

 

[convicted1]

Give me a break Willis, I just described trusting Christ as letting a lawyer handle your case, you sit there and don't say a word, and now you are telling me I was saying you get all involved and argue the case???????

Go back and read what I said again, you read the exact opposite of what I really wrote.

And I guess you think an unconscious person lying on an operating table is also performing his own surgery???

Like I said Willis, there is no way we can agree.

So, do you not agree that believing on Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour is a work of God?

 

[quantumfaith]

John,
you didn't define "easy believism", either as a phrase or a theological position. You only described some methods employed by some who you believe to be advocating "easy believism"

I subscribe to the doctrine of justification which was first called easy believism.

Just a few points:

1) The term was popularized in an ongoing debate between Hodges, to whose theology the label “easy-believism” was affixed, and John MacArthur, to whom the term “lordship salvation” came to be applied. (from Monergism.com) - http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/qna/easybelieve.html

1) "Easy believism" is not a "position", per se. It is a derogatory slur, meant to aid in discrediting a position - very much like when I refer to John MacArthur's radio program as "Works to you" instead of by its actual name. It's nothing but a derogatory slur that is meant to pack more punch than a 1,000 word treatise. But these derogatory slurs (even mine) are usually useless to anyone other than those who agree with the one using it.

2) Easy believism technically refers to the "Free Grace" position that one must believe in Jesus Christ alone for eternal life. Sola Gratia, per Sola Fide - Grace Alone thru Faith Alone. Faith in Christ, plus nothing. Faith in Christ, minus nothing. To say that some church uses altar calls and sinner's prayers, and call that easy believism is a misunderstanding of what easy believism actually teaches. Or......

3) The "Free Grace" position has been so horribly misrepresented by its opponents, that some ought to lose their ministerial credentials for such blatant dishonesty.

Look at this quote:


http://www.theopedia.com/Non-lordship_salvation

Virtually everyone today who throws around the term "easy believism" parrots some of these lines. However....

It is a blatant falsehood to say that easy believism implies there is no "corresponding need" for a committed life of Christian discipleship. There is absolutely a corresponding need, but there is not a corresponding inevitability.

If there was no need for discipleship, we would not have so many New Testament encouragements and warnings to persevere, endure, follow, etc. On the other hand, if there was inevitability of discipleship, we would not have so many New Testament encouragements and warnings to persevere, endure, follow, etc.

Easy believism does not teach decisional regeneration. No one, at no time, was ever justified or regenerated because he made a decision.

To my knowledge, there isn't any advocate of easy believism who actually teaches that we "accept Christ". One believes upon Christ, then HE accepts US on account of faith in Him.

Easy believism is by no means Arminian. I hold to that view of justification called "easy believism". And if someone ever calls me an Arminian, I'm gonna be looking to punch him in the nose. I have never been called such a vile name as Arminian, and would hope I never am.

Here is another:



I really want to slap people who accuse "easy believism" of teaching any such notion of mere intellectual assent to some facts.

Recently, my 8 year old son has been inquiring greatly about salvation and his eternal destiny, and I instruct him more fully to believe upon Christ. I've used scripture, parables (my own), rhetoric, etc., to convey to him that one must believe the gospel. And just this past weekend, we spent an hour discussing the difference between believing facts ABOUT Christ, and believing IN Christ.

I've explained that while we're trusting God to save us, it is not a generic god, but the Word of God made flesh. And that we aren't saved because we believe a story, or we believe facts. I've taught him that we trust HIM, not our knowledge ABOUT Him. This is the one issue which makes me the most sick. It has been explained over and over again to the likes of MacArthur, and he still does it.

If someone honestly believes "assent to facts" is what constitutes faith, then he doesn't understand faith at all. And when someone insists that "faith is not just facts, but includes commitment", he is basically teaching that salvation is by "facts plus works", neither of which saves


And Dispensational theology is NOT the foundation of Easy Believism. Easy Believism relates to the doctrine of justification. I adhere to Easy Believism, and I am not a Dispensationalist. I hold to a Premillennial, Post Tribulation view, but I also believe that there is one body of believers, both before and after the cross, together in Christ.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[convicted1]

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

You're as consistent as an linear equation, Brother Dave!! :smilewinkgrin:

 

[evangelist6589]

Easy believism is the scourge of the modern church. It is easy and non offensive to preach and many are following this path. It is not easy to find a genuine doctrinally sound church any more. :thumbsup:

Well said, well said.

 

[evangelist6589]

Actually it has nothing to do with works, easy believism removes offensiveness of the gospel to make it easier to make a decision. Just add Jesus to your life and remain as you are and you can have a wonderful life. The OP spelled this out.

The easy believism of Rick Warren and Bill Hybels have filled thousands of churches with tares and goats.

There a various degrees of easy-believism and not all of them are the same. But yes no question lots of goats among the flock.

 

[evangelist6589]

Rick Warren does not hold to easy believism.

How can you quote DA Carson and like Warren at the same time?

 

[Revmitchell]

How can you quote DA Carson and like Warren at the same time?

Warren is not what you make him out to be. It is real easy to ride your high horse from a distance and judge people. Until you have been there at his church you don't really know anything about him. Your judgment of him is not Christian behavior.

 

[evangelist6589]

Warren is not what you make him out to be. It is real easy to ride your high horse from a distance and judge people. Until you have been there at his church you don't really know anything about him. Your judgment of him is not Christian behavior.

Seriously??? I have read his Purpose Driven book and he gets much wrong in that book and in his ministry. For starters what is Warren's view on homosexuality? Is it sinful? Second what does Warren think of Islam?

 

[SolaSaint]

Warren is not what you make him out to be. It is real easy to ride your high horse from a distance and judge people. Until you have been there at his church you don't really know anything about him. Your judgment of him is not Christian behavior.

Rev,

It is one thing to critique Warren and his Saddleback church and another to critique his invasion of the church through his many how-to-books and website that has affected thousands of pastors. He is on a high horse riding throughout our world spreading his easy believism, so yes we can criticize him. I'm glad to be in the number that stand against his PD programs that have ruined many churches. I'm sorry you cannot see this Rev as a danger to the church.

 

[JamesL]

James obviously your version of easy believism is a different animal than what is being discussed here. If I can speak for the OP, I would say he means those who have people just sign a card to accept Christ (or similar gimmicks) and yes that is done in some churches, I've seen it. Evan if I'm not representing your OP, please set me straight.

I agree that what is being discussed here is not what I described. But what is being discussed here is not easy believism.

What's being thrown around here is:
easy walk an aislism
easy prayerism
easy sign a cardism

Those should not even be called believism, because they are works.

It's what I call "the voodoo of you do" - if YOU do this, or YOU do that, Jesus will come into your heart.

You know what's funny? I have heard many, many Protestants rail against Roman Catholics because of a perceived notion that one can simply go to a confessional, do three Hail Marys, and then continue along in their worldliness.

But then those same Protestants rail against the RCC's works teachings.

But then those same Protestants are asking "Where are your WORKS?"

And that actually springs into this:

Where did you get the disdain for Mac? I think you are misrepresenting him.

No, I'm not misrepresenting him at all. I used to listen to his radio program (I'll refrain from my slur this once), read his books, and parroted the same empty lines I heard from him.

I know what he teaches, and it is a false gospel - one where faith and works are so confused that either he never has been a believer, or he has fallen away from the faith.

My disdain for him comes from having once been a devotee. Some would say I have an axe to grind, but I don't.

He had me so shaken all the time, wondering if I had genuinely believed, because of his putrid lines like:

"Jesus is either Lord OF all, or He's not Lord AT all"

Well, I knew myself. I loved to see a gorgeous woman walk by, and I had a tendency to look for just a little too long - still do, by the way. I don't think God created anything better than a beautiful woman.

There were other "areas of my life" that weren't walking in total harmony with Christ, and Mac made the implication very clear - over and over again - that if I was not towing the line, I was not saved. And I knew myself. I still failed

I heard someone say "Well, just the fact that you're struggling is evidence that you're saved."

But not according to what my great mentor Mac said. His preaching left no doubt in my mind that a born again believer will not only desire to do good, but will actually do it.

And I wasn't. At least not to the point that I felt comfortable saying that Jesus was "Lord of all"

And I spewed the same nonsense that I heard from Mac, pointing at others who struggled, all the while shoving my own failures under the rug so nobody could point the finger back at me.

But when I laid down at night, all by myself, I knew my hypocrisy, and that furthered my doubt that I had genuine faith.

Mac's doctrine is an absolute mess.

 

[quantumfaith]

You're as consistent as an linear equation, Brother Dave!! :smilewinkgrin:

Actually, there are inconsistent linear equations, especially when you have a system of linear equations.

I hope you do not take offense when I register my "likes" and appreciation of comments. If I were rhetorically gifted in the theological domain, I would make attempts to elaborate.

 

[evangelist6589]

Rev,



It is one thing to critique Warren and his Saddleback church and another to critique his invasion of the church through his many how-to-books and website that has affected thousands of pastors. He is on a high horse riding throughout our world spreading his easy believism, so yes we can criticize him. I'm glad to be in the number that stand against his PD programs that have ruined many churches. I'm sorry you cannot see this Rev as a danger to the church.

Exactly. The false teaches must be opposed and exposed. If I was in his area I would visit the church and attempt to reason with him. If they rejected me I would then open air preach on their campus.

 

[evangelist6589]

Actually, there are inconsistent linear equations, especially when you have a system of linear equations.



I hope you do not take offense when I register my "likes" and appreciation of comments. If I were rhetorically gifted in the theological domain, I would make attempts to elaborate.

What do you have to contribute here? But in this case I would rather be in a Andy Stanley church over a warren church. But neither is a good choice. I sure wish the son would learn from the father whom preached on HELL JUDGMENT SIN AND DAMNATION AND REPENTANCE.

 

[evangelist6589]

James obviously your version of easy believism is a different animal than what is being discussed here. If I can speak for the OP, I would say he means those who have people just sign a card to accept Christ (or similar gimmicks) and yes that is done in some churches, I've seen it. Evan if I'm not representing your OP, please set me straight.



I agree that what is being discussed here is not what I described. But what is being discussed here is not easy believism.



What's being thrown around here is:

easy walk an aislism

easy prayerism

easy sign a cardism



Those should not even be called believism, because they are works.



It's what I call "the voodoo of you do" - if YOU do this, or YOU do that, Jesus will come into your heart.



You know what's funny? I have heard many, many Protestants rail against Roman Catholics because of a perceived notion that one can simply go to a confessional, do three Hail Marys, and then continue along in their worldliness.



But then those same Protestants rail against the RCC's works teachings.



But then those same Protestants are asking "Where are your WORKS?"



And that actually springs into this:









No, I'm not misrepresenting him at all. I used to listen to his radio program (I'll refrain from my slur this once), read his books, and parroted the same empty lines I heard from him.



I know what he teaches, and it is a false gospel - one where faith and works are so confused that either he never has been a believer, or he has fallen away from the faith.



My disdain for him comes from having once been a devotee. Some would say I have an axe to grind, but I don't.



He had me so shaken all the time, wondering if I had genuinely believed, because of his putrid lines like:



"Jesus is either Lord OF all, or He's not Lord AT all"



Well, I knew myself. I loved to see a gorgeous woman walk by, and I had a tendency to look for just a little too long - still do, by the way. I don't think God created anything better than a beautiful woman.



There were other "areas of my life" that weren't walking in total harmony with Christ, and Mac made the implication very clear - over and over again - that if I was not towing the line, I was not saved. And I knew myself. I still failed



I heard someone say "Well, just the fact that you're struggling is evidence that you're saved."



But not according to what my great mentor Mac said. His preaching left no doubt in my mind that a born again believer will not only desire to do good, but will actually do it.



And I wasn't. At least not to the point that I felt comfortable saying that Jesus was "Lord of all"



And I spewed the same nonsense that I heard from Mac, pointing at others who struggled, all the while shoving my own failures under the rug so nobody could point the finger back at me.



But when I laid down at night, all by myself, I knew my hypocrisy, and that furthered my doubt that I had genuine faith.



Mac's doctrine is an absolute mess.

James thanks for your input but a question.

Have you read the following books?

The gospel according to jesus
Faith works or the gospel according to the apostles

They are well defended with scripture. If you have a copy of one of the books start a new thread and let's chat about it. Did you highlight and take notes? Mark your margins? I sure do. Let's chat.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

It is not easy to find a genuine doctrinally sound church any more.

You're living on the wrong side of the state, then, Rick. They are numerous over here. Either that, you have a misconception about what is taught in many churches.

 

[evangelist6589]

You're living on the wrong side of the state, then, Rick. They are numerous over here. Either that, you have a misconception about what is taught in many churches.

What state?

 

[quantumfaith]

What do you have to contribute here? But in this case I would rather be in a Andy Stanley church over a warren church. But neither is a good choice. I sure wish the son would learn from the father whom preached on HELL JUDGMENT SIN AND DAMNATION AND REPENTANCE.

"What do you have to contribute here"??? Are you looking to provoke me Evang? hopefully I am just reading incorrectly? Please let me know

 

[Yeshua1]

James thanks for your input but a question.

Have you read the following books?

The gospel according to jesus
Faith works or the gospel according to the apostles

They are well defended with scripture. If you have a copy of one of the books start a new thread and let's chat about it. Did you highlight and take notes? Mark your margins? I sure do. Let's chat.

That is Lordship salvation....

Do you define 'easy believism" as any who would NOT agree in Lordship salvation?
Who did not agree with reformed doctrine?

MY definition of that is when a person came forward at an alter call invitation, and can look to THAT event ONLY as getting right with God, as their lifestyle showed no real change since that time!