EASY BELIEVISM

biblelineministries.org ^ | Hank Lindstrom

[P-Marlowe]

EASY BELIEVISM

By Hank Lindstrom

     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)."

[drstevej]

The judgment is loss of reward.

Chastening isn't designed as punishment for punishment sake, it is to conform us into the image of Christ. At death we are as believers present with the Lord -- we stand in the righteousness of Christ. Chastening is no longer needed.

[don-o]

Believers do appear before the judgment seat of Christ

You will acknowledge that this "two phase" Judgement was offered by Darby, Schofield and the novel dispensational theology that they offered?

[drstevej]

I am a dispensationalist, unashamedly.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

This sounds like an argument for purgatory.

[drstevej]

Nope. All, all, all of my sins were forgiven in Christ.

[don-o]

I appreciate that.

Do you know the history of your chosen theological framework?

I'm going on memory, but a web seach on Darby, Schofield, Plymouth Brethern and especially Irving (think it was Clifford) might be in order.

[drstevej]

***Do you know the history of your chosen theological framework?***

Sure do. I did my ThM at Dallas Seminary in historical theology. Lived a mile from Scofield Memorial Church. Have a lot of respect for the Plymouth Brethren.

BTW, it was Edward Irving.

[don-o]

Edward, indeed.

Have you turned it over in your mind recently. A quck search found a book predicting that soon Dallas will discard this innovation.

Also found this.

Link

Dispensationalists begin by clearing the board of all opinions except their own; they dismiss as useless and false all historic interpretations. Next they divide the human race and the Bible into three distinct groups (this is convenient since any scripture which would otherwise refute their interpretation can be relegated to another "division" of Scripture). They add many arbitrary elements which are not supported by the Scriptures, such as extra captivities, extra kingdoms, extra covenants, extra judgments, extra ages, and so on and on. All of these stand or fall together. To disprove one of these premises is to collapse the entire theory.

_____________________________________

Back later. My boys need new shoes.

As a formerly convinced dispensationalist, I would honestly like to revisit my errors with you.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

The judgment is loss of reward.

In Paul's letter to the Ephesians, Chapter 5, he exhorts his Christian audience to remain pure and avoid lewd conduct. He says "Make no mistake about this: no fornicator, no unclean or lustful person has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God......These are sins which bring down God's wrath on the disobedient; therefore have nothing to do with them."

Paul is speaking to Christians in regards to other disobedient Christians. He does not identify the disobedient as unsaved or nonbelievers. Clearly, in our time, we know Christians guilty of sins such as these. Paul in effect said Christians such as these have no share in the kingdom at all. How do you reconcile this with your above statement?

[drstevej]

I don't debate eschatology on line and am not interested in lengthy correspondance. But visit me in Baton Rouge and I'll buy the coffee and we can talk.

BTW, I did my PhD at Westminster so I have been around my share of covenant theologians and we spent many hours there discussing eschatoology.

***A quck search found a book predicting that soon Dallas will discard this innovation***

Please cite the source and the basis for the conclusion. I know many of the men at DTS (many of the faculty department heads) and I think this is wishful speculation from non-dispensationalists. But if they should, my theology wouldn't be changed thereby.

[drstevej]

***no fornicator, no unclean or lustful person has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God......***

[1] This describe people whose lives are characterized by such, not people who have a single incidence, would you agree? If not any person once lusting or doing anything unclean is hell bound (including David).

[2] Just because a person says they are a Christian and attends church (even the 1st century church at Ephesus) does not mean they are genuinely believers. 1 Cor. 5 describe "so called brothers" who are immoral. Paul tells believers to avoid them. He instructs the church to put them out of the church.

My discussion has been regarding genuine believers, no pseudo-sheep.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

I would generally agree with both of those points, however the specifics lead me back to conduct. In Revelations 20 we are specifically told that people will be judged according to their conduct. Those who are not inscribed in the book of the living will be cast into the pool of fire. It doesn't mention anything about levels of reward in Heaven (although I have read non-canonical Scriptures which do). It also makes no specific mention of belief or profession of faith at the time of judgement but rather the end result of faith, conduct.

[don-o]

Actually, the book was a tome by Bahnsen and North. And, I am not interested in their arguments against dispensationalism. Nor, do I expect you to be.

Nor, am I particularly interested is such specifics as eschatologhy.

However, I am interested in how thoughtful people can accept a system of theology that is such a departure from the understanding of even the historical Protestant confessions.

[drstevej]

***Actually, the book was a tome by Bahnsen and North. ***

Bahnsen died in 1995 and DTS is still dispensational. North predicted an economic crash due to Y2K and was the darling of the Art Bell show. Not my kind of prophets. I suspect for both it was wishful thinking more than a working knowledge of Dallas Seminary.

***However, I am interested in how thoughtful people can accept a system of theology that is such a departure from the understanding of even the historical Protestant confessions.***

[1] Sola scriptura.

[2] As time has passed many areas of doctrine have been refined with biblical study.

BTW, a friend of mine [Robert C. Walton] did his ThM thesis at Westminster Seminary arguing the distinction between Israel and the Church ( a sine qua non of dispensationalism). He did a great job and received an A from professors who hold an opposting view.

I can email you a copy if interest (freep me your email address).

[Flying Circus]

21 From that time Jesus began to shew to his disciples, that he must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the ancients and scribes and chief priests, and be put to death, and the third day rise again.

22 And Peter taking him, began to rebuke him, saying: Lord, be it far from thee, this shall not be unto thee.

23 Who turning, said to Peter: Go behind me, Satan, thou art a scandal unto me: because thou savourest not the things that are of God, but the things that are of men.

scandal 1(n) 1b conduct that causes or encourages a lapse of faith or of religious obedience in another

Jesus compared Peter to Satan because like Satan in the desert, Peter was tempting Jesus with the easy way out. In this context he was calling Peter a tempter and was correcting him and his attitude. At this point neither Peter nor any of the other apostles understood what Jesus' mission was and what He had to do. Only after His resurrection and the help of the Hold Spirit did they understand. The commission Peter was given to lead was never taken away.

[ET(end tyranny)]

ET says that Jesus was a failure,

Not quite. Here's what I said in #18
*That is why Jesus' mission failed.*

His mission was to preach repentance, and to get Israel to repent, and become Holy and Priestly so that the Kingdom could come.

But, he wasn't the first to fail in such a mission, as a messiah contender. And the others were usually caught and killed or fled, leaving their followers to die.

If anyone is to blame for his subsequent death, it may be his followers, that may have been too eager to spread the word on who he was, when he had asked them not to.

He may have allowed himself to die, to protect his followers, and in that sense could be seen as having died for 'their' sins.

But, that's about as far as it goes. I pointed out earlier that God didn't want sacrifices. If you look at the history of sacrifices in the OT, you'll see that after the fall, is when sacrifices started. They were meant as a means of fellowship. Not for forgiveness of sin. They were used to draw closer to God. At first they were done whenever the person wanted to do them. Then it became when God commanded them. Then with Abraham/Isaac he replaced Isaac with the Ram.

He was showing that he wanted NO human sacrifices. He was weaning them away from sacrifices. In the atonement it was about confession, prayer, repentance.

The blood was not the issue, it was the SOUL. The soul was found in the blood. You got closer to God by confessing, and repenting. God was gradually showing people how to get closer to God, through confession, prayer and repentance, and not sacrifice.

[DouglasKC]

Satan has inspired many to think that continuing in sin is righteousness.
Show me one mainstream or mainline preacher who preaches such a thing or show me one website that isn't a Jim Jones cult where such a thing is taught.
If you can't then maybe you should repent of your false accusation.
Many do not teach that. This is a strawman argument you are making. Now show me that your strawman is more than just fluff.

Before answering this, let's get our definitions straight. What is sin?

I believe this:

1Jo 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

The biblical defintion of sin is transgression of the law. This can mean a willful violation of the law or "missing the mark"...failure to live fully up to the law.

The "law" is referred to here, under the new covenant.

What is "the law"?

The law is love:

Gal 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, [even] in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Jam 2:8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:
Jam 2:9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.

Now love is kind of a vague term. It could mean anything. Sex. Liking someone. Whatever. But thank God once again He defines what love is in scripture:

Rom 13:8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
Rom 13:9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if [there be] any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself

Here Paul specifically lists the last five of the ten commandments and sums them up as "loving thy neighbor".

So violation of any of those, in physical action or in spirit or thought, means you are sinning. You are not loving your neighbor as God intended.

But wait there is another component to love, love of God:

Luk 10:25 And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
Luk 10:26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?
Luk 10:27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.

Now we know that Paul has already defined love of neighbor. We know that it's keeping the commandments. So what's love of God? Keeping the first 5 commandments. No other Gods, keep God's sabbath, etc.

Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

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.

Do you agree with this?

[ET(end tyranny)]

I agree with 99.9% of your post.

The only part I disagree with is, this thing called a 'new covenant'.

There was no 'new' covenant, but a ReNEWal of the old covenant.

Jeremiah 31
31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Israel had to return to God and allow His Commandments to be written on their hearts and minds. Israel needed a Covenant Renewal of their Sinai Covenant. They needed to repent and return to God through obedience to His Laws thus being a witness and an example to the nations. Only by being such a righteous priestly nation, and example, could they hope to be the catalyst that merits the arrival of the Kingdom of Heaven and its King. Here it was promised that the spiritual infirmity of Israel would be helped by the intervention of God.

God allowed them to RENEW their 'lease'. But, this time, it was not written on stone, but written WITHIN THEIR HEARTS.

IF..... IF.... there was a new covenant, then why is it that one of the promises of the old covenant (Isreal would regain their homeland) was fulfilled in 1948, when Israel became a nation???

It's the same covenant, just put forth more forcefully, imo.

[anncoulteriscool]

Is your book on Amazon or should we just wait for the movie !!!! LOL!

[DouglasKC]

And i agree 99.9% with your post.

The only thing there might be a difference on is the terms. The new convenant was established by Christ:

Heb 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than [that of] Abel.

He affirmed the covenant at the last supper:

Mat 26:28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

I agree though that it could just as well be thought of a renewal because God's promises never changed...but he actually did add on to his promises by now adding in eternal life, which wasn't in the old covenant.

But as far as the law it's exactly right...nothing in the law changed except that which was specified in scripture. Israel broke the original covenanat, not God.

God in his mercy made it in a sense easier for us to fulfill the terms by giving us the gift of his holy spirit to live in and through us and enable us to grow in righteousness. With the sacrifice of Christ it no longer became about us trying to keep the law...it became about Christ indwelling in us and living through us to do so and covering our sins while we grow in faith. The outward appearance is that we are keeping the written law. This is how I believe the law is written on our hearts.