"Easy Christianity" Seeks to Separate Itself from Sound Doctrine!

I found this cartoon funny but the reality is not funny because the person is really on his way to Hell. It's a grim reality that is waiting to happen with all the modern churches that are attempting to fit in with the theology of others. What I am upset about is that real sound theology should fit with the Bible verse by verse, context by context NOT have a theology that fits with the worldly viewpoint of the sinful man. Unfortunately, some churches have gone as far as to attempt to separate themselves from sound doctrine. 2 Timothy 4:3-4 says, "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables."

Salvation by works has been the most obvious danger that heresy fighters have been going against but it has its extreme opposite called salvation that does not result to good works, which is subtly dangerous as it can cause genuine Christians to have fellowship also with the wrong people who they won't know are saved until the fruits are manifested. Right now, such people are trying to pervert salvation and separate it from its fruits. The problem is called "easy believism" and sad to say, a lot of Southern Baptist churches are falling away even to condone the carnality of their members as if they were saved when they were never saved. They mistranslated 1 Corinthians 3:1 without seeing the word carnal there is SARKINOIS (which is a temporal condition like a healthy man who gets a flu) vs. SARKIKOS (fleshly and against anything spiritual).

I remembered enjoying a lot of Pastor Paul Washer's sermons and somehow I can't remember them all they had a powerful washing force against "Easy Christianity". What I really love about Paul Washer's sermons is that he is no-nonsense compared to what's going on with some Southern Baptist assemblies today. He said a million times in many of his sermons that one of the greatest problems is the repeat after me evangelism and everything is judged based on a sinner's prayer rather than repentance of sin. They are just told, "Who wants to receive Jesus..." then "I do, I do." but there is no repentance. Now I notice some people got saved in spite of that because before they were led to the sinner's prayer, they were really broken from sin. They asked Jesus Christ to come into their hearts in repentance of their sinfulness. When one repents of sin or metanoneia, it's a change of mind which begets a change in purpose. The change of mind (the seed) bears a change in purpose (the fruit). A lot of people are getting baptized but they are not even saved to start with. It's a null and void baptism no thanks to "Easy Christianity".

Now let me get this straight, I can embrace any non-Calvinist Christian as a brother or sister in Christ. David W. Cloud although he is not a Calvinist has stated that he can still embrace a Calvinist Christian seeing the evidences of truly knowing Christ. While Cloud himself his not a Calvinist he does not teach a shallow conversion. He teaches a true conversion where that true converts do not fall away. Although he is not a Calvinist, he certainly believes in the preservation of the saints. Dr. Vernon McGee, Billy Sunday and Harry Allen Ironside were all non-Calvinists but they were sound teachers who taught that true Christians would inevitably endure to the end as a result of their salvation. Although McGee felt like he was an opponent of Lordship theology but he was only in semantic error, not doctrinal error. Sunday himself though he was a non-Calvinist was a no-nonsense person who in spite of being non-Calvinist, would not dare break away from sound doctrine, he was an anti-booze preacher and won many drunkards to Christ. Did the drunks continue to drink all they want after they were saved? Not anymore because they were truly saved.

Easy Christianity also seeks to divorce salvation from sanctification. They can easily confuse the teaching that Christians who believe that true believers are sanctified by God's grace and true converts will endure to the end, are teaching works salvation. I was thinking why do they say such nonsense? Do they want a Christianity without sanctification? Do they in reality want to sin all they want? Do they want to live as wantonly as did before? Maybe they don't want to say yes but it feels like they want to sin all they want and live no different than before. But I'm sorry nowhere in the Scripture is it possible that for a saved man to have not the slightest change. Titus 2:11-14 teaches that God's grace teaches holy living and results in holy living. Again, am I being a legalist when I say that I cannot embrace somebody who revels in sin as a brother or sister in Christ? Absolutely not as I believe Christians must be allowed to grow in grace, do good works by grace and not by coercion but by God's mercy and love that they grow to become better than when they started, they become less and less prone to being sarkinoisas the days go by just as a man who develops the proper exercise becomes less and less prone to catching a cold as he improves his health.

Acts 26:20 says, "But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance." Did you read that... do works meet for repentance! Again, if you are truly saved, good works are the delight and pleasure of the new man. The word meet here is "axios" which debunks both the works salvationist and the Antinomian. Axios means "worthy" or "corresponding" which verifies that metanoneia means "a change in mind which begets a change in purpose". That is, true repentance continues and breeds good works in spite of the old man still being around (Romans 7:14-25). A true salvation while it may fail to bear fruit at times but it will not be fruitless all the time. "Easy Christians" just want to continue missing the point regardless, don't they?