EASY BELIEVISM

     What is "Easy Believism"?  Usually the phrase "easy-believism" is a slam against those who teach that salvation is not by human works, but by faith in Jesus Christ alone.  It is clear from the Scriptures that salvation is received by faith only in the finished work of Jesus Christ.  "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 (Ephesians 2:8,9)."

     "Easy Believism" is a way of saying that salvation by faith in Jesus Christ alone is just too easy.  "It is too simple," they say.  Those who use the phrase "easy believism" are saying that there must be more to salvation than just faith in Jesus Christ.

     The Bible tells us that Satan uses the fact that the Gospel message is so simple to deceive people.  II Corinthians 11:3 says, "But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ."  One of the most common objections to the true gospel message is that "it is too simple".

     Satan changes the true gospel into a counterfeit message by addition and subtraction.  In other words, Satan adds human works or effort to the plan of salvation in order to make the message of none effect (I Corinthians 1:17).  Satan used phrases like "easy believism" and "it is too simple" to ridicule the true message of faith only (Romans 3:28).

     To not believe the record as God gave it makes it null and void. "He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son (I John 5:10)."  To add one human work to the plan of salvation would place a person before God without grace.  Romans 11:6 says, "And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace.  But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work."

     When we talk about believing, we are not talking about mental assent to a historical fact.  We are talking about a personal trust in the Lord Jesus Christ as the One who gave His life on the cross of Calvary, was buried and then rose again from the dead.  The word "believe" comes from the Greek word "pisteuo", which means to trust, to rely upon, to place one's weight upon, etc.  When a person puts his trust in Jesus Christ alone as his Saviour, he is saved.

     Christ died-that is history.  Christ died for me-that is salvation.  The fact that Jesus Christ died is a historical fact.  Accepting that truth about Jesus Christ's death as a historical fact does not save.  But the personal acceptance of Jesus Christ as a risen Saviour, who died for me does save.

     This conflict over grace vs. works has been going on ever since Cain and Abel.  Even the apostle Paul was slandered when he preached the gospel of the grace of God.  Romans 3:8 says, "And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just."  Some people were affirming that the apostle Paul taught that salvation by faith only was a license to sin.  "Let us do evil, that good may come (Romans 3:8)."

     We have now seen the two major objections to the true gospel.  1) "It is too simple", and 2) "easy believism" means that I could live as I please and still go to heaven.

     Amazingly, when a person is saved, he is saved forever and cannot be lost.  Jesus Christ gave His word in John 6:37 and 39, that "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.  And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day."  If one person were ever lost that was ever saved, then Jesus Christ would be a liar (John 6:39).

     Therefore, it is true that no matter what a person does after he is saved that person is still saved.  What the person can lose by living as he pleases is not his salvation, but rewards, joy, fellowship, power, testimony, etc.  The things related to the Christian life and eternal rewards can be lost but not one's salvation.  This can also include the Lord taking a Christian home to heaven early.  Many of the Corinthian believers were taken home to heaven early according to I Corinthians 11:30 which says, "For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep."  Also, I Corinthians 10:8 tells of 23,000 that the Lord took home to heaven in one day.  It is clear that there are numerous illustrations throughout the Bible that God sometimes will take a Christian home before his time.  God will not cast the delinquent Christian out, but God might take him home to heaven early.

     Concerning the saved, God says in I Corinthians 11:32, "When we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world."  God deals with His children as a loving father would correct his erring child.  God is interested in our welfare and wishes for us to live a life that He can bless and reward.  (See Hebrews 12:6-11).

     So the Christian does not have a license to sin when he accepts Jesus Christ as his Saviour, even though the person is saved eternally and cannot be lost.  Again, salvation is by faith in Jesus Christ alone.  Romans 4:5 says, "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness."

     To add works to the plan of salvation would be heresy and would mean no salvation at all. Ephesians 2:8,9 says "For 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."  I would hate to stand before God having no grace (mercy).  To anyone who adds works to God's grace, they will have no grace (mercy) according to Ephesians 2:8,9.

     In conclusion, those who say "easy-believism" are rejecting the true gospel of grace (Ephesians 2:8,9), by saying "it is too simple" and "it is a license to sin".  Remember the true gospel is simple (II Corinthians 11:3), and God corrects (chastens) those that are truly saved (Hebrew 12:6).

     We pray that you can say as the Apostle Paul said, "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek (Roman 1:16)."

Matthew 7
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

The point here is that to prophecise in his name, is NOT a commandment.

Casting out devils is NOT a commandment.

Therefore these items are not 'the will of God'. The will of God is that we keep the commandments.

Sorry it's taken so long...but I wanted to respond to this.

27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
One of the Noahide laws, carried over into Mosaic, is the commandment to abstain from 'drinking blood'. Jesus was a devout Jew, righteous. Do you really think that Jesus would suggest something, say something like the above verses, knowing full well that it was against Torah????

If it were really blood that was being drank then yes, I could see that. But it was wine that represented blood. It was symbolic of a couple of things:

Lev 16:15 Then he shall kill the goat of the sin offering that is for the people, and bring its blood inside the veil. And he shall do with that blood as he did with the blood of the young bull, and sprinkle it on the mercy-seat and before the mercy-seat.

Here we see that the blood of the sacrifice was spread on the mercy seat of the arc, the place where God resided. Jesus was directly relating the drinking of his "blood" to the spreading of blood on the mercy seat. When we drink the symbolic blood, we are symbolically cleansing the new mercy seat where God resides, in ourselves where the living God indwells.

More likely the drinking of blood was added later. Drinking of blood is pagan, and probably introduced by Paul, whose roots were pagan Tarsus

Sorry, I think Jesus knew exactly what he was doing by using this symbolism. I think the people may or may not have understood it. We know that some were upset by this reference:

Joh 6:60 Then when they had heard, many of His disciples said, This is a hard saying, who can hear it?

We don't know exactly why it was a hard saying, but it could have been because it sounded like cannibalism or it could have been because they couldn't accept that Jesus was comparing the drinking of his blood to the sprinking of the sacrificial blood on the ark.

To suggest 'eating his flesh', canibalism, too, I would think Jesus would have been horrified at the idea, much less say something so ungodly.

Same thing...the priests were instructed to eat the sin offering as well as the passover lamb. Jesus also compared the eating of his flesh to the eating of manna. Again, I believe Jesus understood the symbolism.

The catholic eucharist believes that the wine and wafer become the actual body and blood of Christ. Do you have any idea how many people were burned at the stake because they refused to accept this pagan idea??

I don't agree with the catholic view on this.

Since Paul's writings are the oldest in the NT, it seems logical that the gospels were crafted to support Paul's gospel, of gnostic paganism. jmo

I put a lot of thought and prayer into this. It came down to either accepting the new covenant as put forth in scripture or not. I think, as Peter did, that Pauls writings were willfully misinterpreted to cloud and confuse Christians. I believe the same thing is still happening today. But I think scripture is consistent if carefully examined.

Symbolic or not, the 'implication' is there, to 'drink blood'. Totally against Torah. Jesus wouldn't go against the commandments. The drinking of blood is pagan, some of the 'pagans' would drink the blood of 'wise' men, believing that a part of the 'wise' men would live in them. Make them wise, like the 'wise' men.

He 'could' have said sprinkle the blood here or there, but NOT drink!!

Besides, Jesus said he didn't want sacrifice. So, no need for blood.

Matthew 9:13
But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Mark 12
32 And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:
33 And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.
34 And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. And no man after that durst ask him any question.

Isaiah 1:11
To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.

Psalm 51
16 For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering.
17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.

1 Samuel 15:22
And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.

Hosea 6
6 For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

God tells us that he doesn't want sacrifice, Jesus tells us that he doesn't want sacrifice, yet lo' and behold, Jesus 'becomes' a sacrfice! Then people are supposed to 'drink' his blood... 'symbolicaly' of course! But, the implicit 'intent' is there, and was probably not lost on the pagans that Paul was trying to 'entice' into his fold, to follow 'his' gospel.

Symbolic or not, the 'implication' is there, to 'drink blood'. Totally against Torah. Jesus wouldn't go against the commandments.

The point is that it was wine, not blood, and Jesus was not going against the commandments when symbolizing it anymore then symbolizing himself as a sheep gate. That doesn't mean sheep gates are Christ anymore than wine is the blood of Christ.

The drinking of blood is pagan, some of the 'pagans' would drink the blood of 'wise' men, believing that a part of the 'wise' men would live in them. Make them wise, like the 'wise' men.

That's not the purpose of taking the wine. It's a symbolic representation of the blood of Christ atoning for our sins. Anyone who understands it in a pagan way is in error.

He 'could' have said sprinkle the blood here or there, but NOT drink!!

He could have said that, but that would have made it an external thing.

Again, the ark held the 10 commandments. The ark would be anagulous to the human heart, where God's law written in believers. God resided on the mercy seat, where the blood of the sacrifice was sprinkled. The drinking of blood, taking it into your body internally, symbolizes the sprinkling of Christ's blood in the holy of holys on the mercy seat. The purpose of Christ instituting the practice was to teach that our bodies are where God resides and that his laws are now in our hearts...an internal reality.

Matthew 9:13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
Hosea 6 For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

You presented these verses as evidence that God did not want a sacrifice of Christ.

In Matthew 9:13 Christ is quoting Hosea 6 so we'll analyze Hosea 6 starting with the verses that immediately follow them:

Hos 6:7 But they like men have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me.
Hos 6:8 Gilead [is] a city of them that work iniquity, [and is] polluted with blood.

The intrepetation is that the people were totally missing the spiritual part of God's message and depending on the ritual of animal sacrifice alone. They weren't changing their behavior. Jump back to Matthew 9:13. Christ levels the exact same charge against the Pharisees. Despite their religious adhereance to all the proscribed sacrifices they just didn't get it.

There is nothing inherently wrong with the concept of sacrifice, only sacrifice without the proper understanding of why it's done. Paul condemned the taking of the wine and bread without this understanding:

1Co 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink [this] cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
1Co 11:28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of [that] bread, and drink of [that] cup.
1Co 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

Paul was a Pharisee. He totally understood and taught the symbolism of Christs sacrifice as it pertained to the priestly functions prescribed in the ot for sacrifices.

Indeed it's prophesized as I believe you pointed out that sacrifices will resume in God earthly kingdom. So animal sacrifice is a legitimate tool of God as long as it's understood what it's purpose is.

My interpretation is that they ARE followers of Jesus, who consider themselves saved, as they prophesied, cast out devils, and did many works IN HIS NAME. You're not going to see Jews or Muslims doing good works in Jesus' name.

Now compare to Matthew 25:34 - 46 :

34 - Then the King will say to those at his right hand, "Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

35 - For I was hungry, and you gave me food, I was thristy and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me,

36 - I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me."

37 - Then the righteous will answer him, "Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink?

38 - And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee"

39 - And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?"

40 - And the King will answer them, "Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me."

41 - "Then he will say to those at his left hand, "Depart form me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels:

42- for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink,

43 - I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me."

44 - Then they also answer, "Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in proison, and did not minister to thee?"

45- And he will annswer them, "Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me."

46 - And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

__________________________________________________ Jesus says the RIGHTEOUS get eternal life. Who are the righteous?

After going back through this thread, rereading the exchanges between you and ET, just a few comments.(Actually meant to comment a few days ago, but didn't get "a round tuit".) Although i can't say that i'm in complete agreement with everything you've posted, you sure do a beautiful job in presenting your view. I particularly like your post #46. Your last paragraph sums it up perfectly.

"All the law is based on love. Violation of the law is violation of love. They are the same. If we don't love God and our neighbor fully, then we are in violation. If we purposely and habitually violate one of the ten commandments, we are purposely and deliberately thwarting God."

Your words made me think of the phrase, "GOD is LOVE." Well, God IS love....and so I couldn't help but note that the words LOVE and GOD are perfectly interchangeable in what you wrote. -

"All the law is based on (or has its foundation in) love (or God). Violation of the law is violation of love (or God). They are the same. If we don't love God and our neighbor fully, then we are in violation. If we purposely and habitually violate one of the ten commandments, we are puposely and deliberately thwarting God (or Love)."

RE: "God tells us that he doesn't want sacrifice, Jesus tells us that he doesn't want sacrifice, yet lo' and behold, Jesus 'becomes' a sacrfice! Then people are supposed to 'drink' his blood... 'symbolicaly' of course! But, the implicit 'intent' is there, and was probably not lost on the pagans that Paul was trying to 'entice' into his fold, to follow 'his' gospel."

Check this link out. When you get there, scroll down just a little to the third gray box labeled, "Issues addressed on Sin and Atonement". Read on from that point.

http://www.outreachjudaism.org/response.html

Also, more info if you go to the Jews for Judiasm site and click on Knowledge Base in the left margin. Then go to the top of the page and click on the red "here" for the list of questions. Then check out the questions and answers on "Atonement, Sacrifice, and Salvation". (Wish i could get you to the link easier....sorry.)

http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/j4j-2000/index.html

More on blood. Even when it was used in the atonement rituals, God commanded that blood was not to be eaten.

Leviticus 17:10

And any man of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that travel among you, who eats any kind of Blood, I will set my face against that soul that eats Blood, and will cut him off from among his people.

Psalms 16:4

They who follow a different god will have their sorrows multiplied. Their drink offerings of Blood will I not offer, nor take up their names to my lips.

Isaiah 5:22-23

Woe to them that are mighty to drink wine, and men of strength to mingle drink, forgiving the sinful for a Bribe, and denying righteousness to the righteous!

I think salvation can be lost, as Paul indicated.

Romans 11
18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in.
20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

In Acts 2:38, it is implied that one receives the gift of the Holy Ghost after baptism.

However, in Acts 10 the Holy Ghost fell upon the Gentiles prior to any baptism.

Acts 10
34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Obviously, baptism isn't required to receive the Holy Ghost. It was Cornelius' righteousness that made him acceptable to God, as pointed out in verse 35.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.