Dear Fellow Theologians, What's the Difference Between "Faith vs Trust"

https://freerepublic.com/~onevike/ ^ | 2/12/21 | OneVike

[OneVike]

The images are my worksheets I go over the completed Scriptures they give me as they complete them.

I then mark my notes before writing a report for us all to go over. The highlighted words are me to be sure all proper names of the persons of the Godhead are capitalized. We are also capitalizing all references to the three persons of the Godhead, like Him, Whom, He, etc. etc.

The penciled Xs are my marks on the times they used trust instead of faith.

[PGalt]

A very interesting post. Thanks, OneVike. Is this an offshoot of dispensationalism?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Cs3Pvmmv0E

See a miracle. Look in the mirror.

[OneVike]

I pinged you, because we either discussed Scripture and Christian topics, or I have read comments by you on religious matters. Thus I know you have shown you have a grasp of understanding the Scriptures. Thus you could be of help to me in my current predicament.

[OneVike]

No, they want to have a more precise Bible to use for their studies and classes.

Nothing to do with the dispensationalism other than translating the Scriptures. we will not be doing any study note either, just associated scriptures to help the reader

[PGalt]

thanks for your homepage

love

[OneVike]

Welcome. I’m glad you visited it.

With the new system it’s more difficult to keep it going since its a headache to find things. It tosses all the HTML into one long run on mess

[Maudeen]

I am hardly a theologian but see what you think about this. https://www.gotquestions.org/difference-faith-trust.html

[Pilgrim's Progress]

New translations are perversions using the corrupt texts of Westcott and Hort and the Alexandrian texts. You do well to stick with the time-tested and proved 1611 King James Bible. You’ll find that the law of first mention is more times than not the best definition of a word, and many times the word is defined within the immediate context of its use.

As to assisting in the preparation for a further attempt of Satan to ask the age-old question, “Yea, hath God said?” I’ve no interest.

[gas_dr]

Hardly a theologian here and probably way over my pay grade but I can let you know my understanding of the faith.

Trust seems situational. I may trust you to do something but it does not require faith in you.

Faith seems to have the connotation of moral characteristic.

For example: It is by faith you are safe through grace. Faith implies rust which is unseen (blessed are they who see and believe and yet more blessed are those who believe and do not see). Faith seems to equate with belief

It seems to be that substituting trust for faith does not work as well

Thus I can trust without faith but cannot have faith without trust.

YMMV.

[impactplayer]

For me the difference is the source: Faith is a gift and Trust is how we treat it.

[Tucsonican]

Trust is the result of experience. I trust, for example, that there will be solid ground beneath my feet when I step outside. Faith is a commitment to the unknown or unknowable. For example, I have faith that the people of this nation will not completely succumb to the lies and false promises of Marxism.

[Tennessee Nana]

For Trust you know what is involved and you see that there is reason to feel that way about a person etc

For Faith, God is involved and you dont know but have hope and you go ahead and believe that He will do as He has promised for your circumstance...

In Faith there is blessings from God..God is pleased with those who obey and have Faith in Him...

For trust it just came out as you thought it might...

Hebrews 11:1, 6

[ClearCase_guy]

My two cents — Trust tells me that one feels an assurance that God will work things out as He sees fit, and that’s OK. Faith is the knowledge that God loves us and that what He wills is what is best for us because He wants us to be saved.

Trust is good but incomplete. If one has Faith, then one also must Trust.

[circlecity]

I think faith is the better word just because centuries of use in a biblical context have attached much of characteristics which distinguishes the word from trust, which granted, in some respects is a synonym. It is the best English word to express the meaning Paul meant to convey when drafting the letters in Koine Greek.

[Bishop_Malachi]

Thank you for including me. I’d like to think about this for a little bit and then post.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

I think you will be hard-pressed to find a more literal translation than the New American Standard Bible, 1995 Update.

And if you want a literal translation that takes into account Greek language, words, sentence structure, verb tense, etc.,. than you will not do better than The New Testament: An Expanded Translation, by Wuest.

[OneVike]

So you are of the belief that God would tell Moses to tell the people ,

“Thou Shalt Not Kill”

Then turn around and commanded his people kill hundreds of thousands of people.

I prefer to believe the texts used for the new Translations that says,

“You Shalt Not Murder”

That way when He then told them to kill the people in the land He promised them, they would not be breaking His commandment.

But go ahead and hold to the old KJV, it has much good things, and I grew up learning from it, but I know it has many errors they took from the Catholic Bible, the Latin Vulgate.

See, the old KJV raised a lot of pacifists that became followers of false faiths.

[the_Watchman]

I believe that your premise is flawed.

RE: My personal belief is, that when you consider a theological point, there can only be one modern English word that could properly convey what the author was intending to get across as to the reason they wrote the letter.

I am a Christian with a strong belief that the Bible is God's inspired word and inerrant. I am part of a small group of men who have been training pastors in two Latin American countries last year. That being said, Biblical Theology dictates, as you have implied, that original context provides a strong direction for determination of original meaning. Because the "real" meaning of the text is the original, inspired, meaning. It will be the meaning that would have been understood by the original intended audience.

One of my favorite phrases from a Biola class on hermeneutics is: The Bible is not written to you!

That same professor continues by pointing out that even though the Bible is not written to you, it is certainly written FOR you!

It was written to people who existed in a different culture, in a different land, speaking a different language, living at a different time. Thus, the expositor must make an attempt to "translate" him or herself back to that original context.

Fortunately, most of the important doctrines do not hinge on this contextual view. For instance, Christ saying "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father except by Me." [my paraphrase], transcends the cultural and temporal divide, for the most part.

Getting back to your original stipulation that there can be only one English word which conveys the proper meaning stands context on its head. The Bible was never written in English. There is no guarantee that all Hebrew and Greek words can be properly translated into one particular English word.

Even if one finds a very strong correlation, there is still the possibility that a modern English reader will pick an English variant not intended by the translator.

I would advise you to spend some time in a few technical commentaries that deal with the Greek and the Hebrew. The WBC, World Bible Commentary series, comes to mind. You will soon find that these people with a lot of experience in the original languages struggle to find the appropriate words and phrases for translation and will many times supply variants which will have followings among others who also attempt to achieve faithful translations.

Further, to trivialize the process into "word for word" shows a naivete about how translations can be done. I read some French. There are many cases where one French word must be translated into many English words and vice versa. Certainly, word order cannot be preserved without doing grave damage to the meaning.

Pastors who pay attention employ the NASB when they want the closest word for word translation. They have to put up with it being slightly stilted. Our church, which is a Bible church with a slant towards Baptist theology, uses the ESV in the pews. It is a modern variant with an attempt to keep to original word meanings.

[jimfr]

Too often people have no concept of what faith really means, as some of the comments here illustrate. While today people understand what trust is. Also, the concept that faith is higher than trust and is spiritual is not true. God never expects us to have “blind” faith. He always gives us something to base our faith on.
I say use trust because both have the same meaning and today people understand trust.

[the_Watchman]

I think you will be hard-pressed to find a more literal translation than the New American Standard Bible, 1995 Update.

And if you want a literal translation that takes into account Greek language, words, sentence structure, verb tense, etc.,. than you will not do better than The New Testament: An Expanded Translation, by Wuest.

I agree with the NASB recommendation.

It is interesting that while I was composing my post, above, I pulled my copy of Wuest off of my bookshelf. Wuest has really EXPANDED the New Testament and underscores my point that it is difficult to adhere to word for word and properly deal with the original meaning.