Which faith movement is the closest to your opinion of what true Christianity is?

[Castle Church]

What part of the truth is the Catholic Church missing?

As a former Catholic as well, I echo what @Josiah said 100%. Don't get me wrong, I love the Catholic Church and fully enjoyed my time there. But as I explored the faith deeper, with a more open eye as to how the Catholic faith is lived out by many of the devoted members, I could not stay. The innovations were too much, the ignored idolatry were too much for me. The Catholic Church has much to be proud for, it has saved countless souls - but too much has been added over time.

 

[rstrats]

I have heard the accusation leveled at some as 'easy believism'. But Christian 'belief' is neither easy or hard. It simply is there in the life of the believer. You either have it or you don't. One who has it can't make themselves 'unbelieve' it. One who doesn't have it can't make themselves believe it.

Lees

Correct. Beliefs cannot be consciously chosen, i.e., engendered.

 

[Albion]

Correct. Beliefs cannot be consciously chosen, i.e., engendered.

That may be true, but it's not what the term "Easy Believism" refers to. Like many other sarcastic labels, this one oversimplifies the issue and can be misunderstood if taken strictly literally.

It's not that belief (in Christ or Christianity) is either easy or hard to come by. The expression refers to what we might rather call Cheap Belief--'signing onto' some deep and powerful concept, then thinking and claiming that you are an adherent or an example of a follower of that belief...all without having grasped anything but the most superficial elements.

 

[Lees]

That may be true, but it's not what the term "Easy Believism" refers to. Like many other sarcastic labels, this one oversimplifies the issue and can be misunderstood if taken strictly literally.

It's not that belief (in Christ or Christianity) is either easy or hard to come by. The expression refers to what we might rather call Cheap Belief--'signing onto' some deep and powerful concept, then thinking and claiming that you are an adherent or an example of a follower of that belief...all without having grasped anything but the most superficial elements.

By 'superficial elements' you mean 'believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved'? (Acts 16:31)

Or, 'For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life"? (John 3:16)

When one first comes to Christ, basically, that is all they know. And, that is all they need to know at that time. Is that cheap or superficial? Of course not. Nor is it easy.

It's not cheap because to call it cheap is to say God has provided a cheap believism. Which means Christ's work would be 'cheap'. And I know you're not saying that.

It's not easy, because easy has nothing to do with it. As I said, the believer can't make himself believe. He hears and believes, and makes a decision.

Lees

 

[Albion]

By 'superficial elements' you mean 'believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved'? (Acts 16:31)

Certainly not.

Or, 'For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life"? (John 3:16)

When one first comes to Christ, basically, that is all they know. And, that is all they need to know at that time. Is that cheap or superficial? Of course not. Nor is it easy.

It's not cheap because to call it cheap is to say God has provided a cheap believism.

No, that guess isn't correct.

An example of "easy believism" or of a superficial attachment to the Lord would be someone who claims to have accepted Christ as Lord and Savior, but who also thinks that this is all that's necessary--labelling himself as a believer while not changing a thing about his life as it was prior to the alleged "conversion."

 

[Lees]

Certainly not.



No, that guess isn't correct.

An example of "easy believism" or of a superficial attachment to the Lord would be someone who claims to have accepted Christ as Lord and Savior, but who also thinks that this is all that's necessary--labelling himself as a believer while not changing a thing about his life as it was prior to the alleged "conversion."

Guess? That is what you said. See post #(23).

You said. "Cheap belief...having grasped nothing but the most superficial elements" That most 'superficial element is belief in Jesus Christ. Which you label as cheap and superficial.

In other words, simple faith in Jesus Christ is not enough for you. It may be enough for God, but not for you.

Guess who I desire to please? Hint...it aint you and your perverted theology.

Lees

 

[Lees]

An example of "easy believism" or of a superficial attachment to the Lord would be someone who claims to have accepted Christ as Lord and Savior, but who also thinks that this is all that's necessary--labelling himself as a believer while not changing a thing about his life as it was prior to the alleged "conversion."

Faith in Christ is 'all that's necessary'.

Just because there are always those who say they are Christian but are not, doesn't change the truth that belief in Christ alone saves. Nor should it require others to label 'faith in Christ' alone as easy believism.

There are plenty of people that go to church and live a good moral life but don't really believe in Christ, though maintaining that appearance. They are not saved. But you and others, myself included, might say they are.

Then there are those who do believe and are saved yet struggle in sinful areas of their life. Some becoming open to the public bringing the charge against them that you call 'easy believism'. You would label them unsaved. Making 'faith alone saves' not true.

Faith alone in Christ saves. Just because there are those who can fool us with their good life and false testimony that they believe doesn't change that. Just because there are those who do believe but struggle with sins in their life, doesn't change that.

Lees

 

[Albion]

Faith in Christ is 'all that's necessary'.

You're quoting the hypothetical "easy believer" who says that claiming Christ is "all that's necessary" for salvation. But the claim itself is not "all that's necessary." Read the Epistle of James who explains this matter at length.

Yes, we can affirm that Faith is necessary, that Faith saves, etc., but WHAT DO WE MEAN BY "FAITH?"

Most Christians, like James, know the truth of the slogan "Talk is cheap." For a person to claim to have saving "Faith" in Christ while making no effort to live like it...is not to have real Faith, period. It's what some people have called "Easy Believism."

Just because there are always those who say they are Christian but are not, doesn't change the truth that belief in Christ alone saves.

No one has disputed that fact on this thread and certainly not yours truly.

Do you have anything to add that's actually on-topic?

Nor should it require others to label 'faith in Christ' alone as easy believism.

No one has suggested that, either. The question was about the meaning of the term, not whether or not we favor it, who uses it, or whether you or I might ever use it in conversation ourselves.

 

[Lees]

You're quoting the hypothetical "easy believer" who says that claiming Christ is "all that's necessary" for salvation. But the claim itself is not "all that's necessary." Read the Epistle of James who explains this matter at length.

Yes, we can affirm that Faith is necessary, that Faith saves, etc., but WHAT DO WE MEAN BY "FAITH?"

Most Christians, like James, know the truth of the slogan "Talk is cheap." For a person to claim to have saving "Faith" in Christ while making no effort to live like it...is not to have real Faith, period. It's what some people have called "Easy Believism."


No one has disputed that fact on this thread and certainly not yours truly.

Do you have anything to add that's actually on-topic?


No one has suggested that, either. The question was about the meaning of the term, not whether or not we favor it, who uses it, or whether you or I might ever use it in conversation ourselves.

No. Why do you feel the need to change the wording? Answer: Because Scripture says otherwise. No one said, 'Christ is all that's necessary'. What I said is 'faith in Christ is all that is necessary. And I gave you (Acts 16:31) and (John 3:16) as proof in my post #(24).

Your effort to misrepresent what was said proves your false position.

No. I don't affirm that faith is necessary. I affirm that 'faith alone saves'. Again you attempt to change the wording and emphasis. Which, again, proves your false intention and position.

Oh yes, yours truly...you.. have disputed that faith alone saves. Prove me wrong and answer me...does faith alone save?

All I have said is on-topic. I simply respond to your statements in your post #(23).

That is a lie. You have made the accusation to others of 'easy believism' without ever bringing the definition of faith into the argument. Now you do once I show you your error. Now you try and hide behind 'definition'. Does 'is' mean 'is'. Please.

Your position is false. Your position is lame.

Lees

 

[Albion]

No. Why do you feel the need to change the wording?

I don't.

If you want to know what the term "Easy Believism" refers to, here it is again and for the last time.

Faith, meaning Faith in Christ, saves. BUT there are many people who claim to be believers in Christ or to have "Faith" when what they really mean is that they admire Jesus or something else in that vein.

They make the claim but do not make any changes in their own lifestyle; they do not live as Christians ought, as the Bible and Christ himself taught, or as men of Faith necessarily strive to do.

Any who are in that frame of mind are nominal Christians at best and do not have saving Faith. What they have is termed "Easy Believism" by some churchgoers.

 

[Lees]

I don't.

If you want to know what the term "Easy Believism" refers to, here it is again and for the last time.

Faith, meaning Faith in Christ, saves. BUT there are many people who claim to be believers in Christ or to have "Faith" when what they really mean is that they admire Jesus or something else in that vein.

They make the claim but do not make any changes in their own lifestyle; they do not live as Christians ought, as the Bible and Christ himself taught, or as men of Faith necessarily strive to do.

Any who are in that frame of mind are nominal Christians at best and do not have saving Faith. What they have is termed "Easy Believism" by some churchgoers.

Yes you have changed the wording and have changed what you and I were saying.

What you're describing now is unbelief. What you described before was 'cheap belief' which you identified as belief without works.

An example of "easy believism" or of a superficial attachment to the Lord would be someone who claims to have accepted Christ as Lord and Savior, but who also thinks that this is all that's necessary--labelling himself as a believer while not changing a thing about his life as it was prior to the alleged "conversion."

Again, I didn't say faith is necessary. I said faith alone saves. Faith alone is all that is necessary.

Please answer my question, which you ignored. Does faith alone save?

Lees

 

[Albion]

Yes you have changed the wording and have changed what you and I were saying.

What you're describing now is unbelief. What you described before was 'cheap belief' which you identified as belief without works.


Again, I didn't say faith is necessary. I said faith alone saves. Faith alone is all that is necessary.

Please answer my question, which you ignored. Does faith alone save?

Lees

None of your complaints there correctly reflects what I wrote.

At this stage of things, though, I think that referring you back to the earlier posts is the best help I can offer, and I hope that a careful re-reading of them will clear up everything for you.

 

[Lees]

None of your complaints there correctly reflects what I wrote.

At this stage of things, though, I think that referring you back to the earlier posts is the best help I can offer, and I hope that a careful re-reading of them will clear up everything for you.

At this stage of things, it is clear you are a coward. You are scared to address what you wrote as I have documented.

You think you can hide behind a 'smiley face'. You may as well hide underneath a womans skirt. How do you like it there? Do you feel protected?

Be a man. Answer my question. Does faith alone save?

Lees

 

[Lamb]

At this stage of things, it is clear you are a coward. You are scared to address what you wrote as I have documented.

You think you can hide behind a 'smiley face'. You may as well hide underneath a womans skirt. How do you like it there? Do you feel protected?

Be a man. Answer my question. Does faith alone save?

Lees

No name calling! (saying coward)

 

[Faith]

As a former Catholic as well, I echo what @Josiah said 100%. Don't get me wrong, I love the Catholic Church and fully enjoyed my time there. But as I explored the faith deeper, with a more open eye as to how the Catholic faith is lived out by many of the devoted members, I could not stay. The innovations were too much, the ignored idolatry were too much for me. The Catholic Church has much to be proud for, it has saved countless souls - but too much has been added over time.

I think you may be right.

 

[Nazareth]

For me, none.
I think Denominationalism has contributed to the fracture of the church that was purposed by Christ to be comprised of his indwelt faithful.

God is not found in structures built by mortal hands, as he tells us in his word. Why would it mean he is found in denominations named after mortal men and their construct of faith practice governed by an administrative and legal hierarchy.

 

[Albion]

For me, none.


God is not found in structures built by mortal hands, as he tells us in his word.

He (Christ) also appointed His Church's first ministers, who appointed others, and so on as the visible church grew. He commanded his people to observe such important ceremonies as Baptism and the Lord's Supper, none of which can be done by an individual on a "do it yourself" basis. Finally, all of this is recorded in God's word (the Bible) as are many references to congregations of Christians meeting, being instructed, and cooperating in ways that, likewise, are impossible for the stray believer.

Why would it mean he is found in denominations named after mortal men

What are the names of any "mortal men" found in such denominational titles as these: the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, the Church of God (the name chosen by over 200 Christian denominations), the Church of Christ (chosen by even more of them), or the Disciples of Christ, The Christian Church, or The Church of the Nazarene, for example??

 

[Nazareth]

He (Christ) also appointed His Church's first ministers, who appointed others, and so on as the visible church grew. He commanded his people to observe such important ceremonies as Baptism and the Lord's Supper, none of which can be done by an individual on a "do it yourself" basis. Finally, all of this is recorded in God's word (the Bible) as are many references to congregations of Christians meeting, being instructed, and cooperating in ways that, likewise, are impossible for the stray believer.

What denomination or religion did Jewish Jesus follow?

Stray believer?
Every Christian is a temple indwelt by God's holy spirit.
Where two or more are gathered in his name there is he also. Two or more indwelt members of his Ekklesia.

Jesus didn't command last supper be repeated He supped with his Disciples and told them to eat and drink in remembrance of him. There and now.
He didn't say repeat this ceremony for centuries.
He said he is with us till the end of the age. We're never without Jesus.

If we want to talk church we have to remember Jesus was a Jew. The Messiah of prophecy manifest.

We don't call ourselves Jews. And Jesis never called himself Christian.

And immersion Baptism need not anyone to administer it. Not is it compulsory else one is not saved.

What are the names of any "mortal men" found in such denominational titles as these: the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, the Church of God (the name chosen by over 200 Christian denominations), the Church of Christ (chosen by even more of them), or the Disciples of Christ, The Christian Church, or The Church of the Nazarene, for example??

The Way of Christ pre-existed the denominations of men. And the council of Nicea for generations.

 

[Albion]

Stray believer?
Every Christian is a temple indwelt by God's holy spirit.
Where two or more are gathered in his name there is he also. Two or more indwelt members of his Ekklesia.

Very well, but we were talking about denominations. Christ of course promised to be with his disciples, even as few as two of them, but that's not about Christian churches or congregations or denominations or what they accomplish.

And by the way, when you talk about the individual, such as yourself, not needing a congregation or ministers, etc. you are describing a lone Christian so you cannot cite a verse that says he will be with two people together at the least. As the verse says, "where two or three are gathered...."

He didn't say repeat this ceremony for centuries.

I'm sorry, but here's what the Bible says about that--

"In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes (1 Corinthians 11:25-26)."

And immersion Baptism need not anyone to administer it. Not is it compulsory else one is not saved.

If you read the Gospel of Matthew, you will find Jesus giving the command to his Apostles to go into all the world, make converts of all nations, AND BAPTIZE THEM. That tells us of Christ appointing someone to administer the sacrament!

 

[Nazareth]

Very well, but we were talking about denominations. Christ of course promised to be with his disciples, even as few as two of them, but that's not about Christian churches or congregations or denominations or what they accomplish.

And by the way, when you talk about the individual, such as yourself, not needing a congregation or ministers, etc. you are describing a lone Christian so you cannot cite a verse that says he will be with two people together at the least. As the verse says, "where two or three are gathered...."


I'm sorry, but here's what the Bible says about that--

"In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes (1 Corinthians 11:25-26)."



If you read the Gospel of Matthew, you will find Jesus giving the command to his Apostles to go into all the world, make converts of all nations, AND BAPTIZE THEM. That tells us of Christ appointing someone to administer the sacrament!

Was the thief on the cross baptized?