The children of Israel again and again believed in God but did not trust in Him. They saw far too many miracles to doubt His existence. They mentally acquiesced to the fact of God, but they did not trust in His power to deliver them. This is an obvious fact of the Old Testament writings. What a difference it would have made for them if they had trusted in God. God wanted to deliver them by His power and glorify His name. This required a trusting faith on their part but, sadly in many instances, they did not have it.

Now without debating which specific actions are true indicators of Biblical trust, I would submit that in every Bible example, of a man or of a people who trusted in God, action of some kind was demonstrated. There is not a single example in all of the Bible of a man who trusted in God who did not demonstrate that trust with action. This is not arguing for a "works" salvation. It is only arguing that some evidence of trust is forthcoming from those who are to be delivered. Jesus said, "Not all who say 'Lord, Lord', will be saved, but those who do the will of my Father". It narrows down to this: Works do not save, nor do they necessarily demonstrate saving faith, but they should be the outpouring of grateful hearts. They are merely the evidences of trust and not the proof of it. A diver may believe that his equipment can safely deliver him to the depths, but he has not trusted in it until he dives. No dive-no trust. Mental acquiescence does not qualify as trust. The children of Israel believed in God, but they did not trust in Him to deliver them thru the Red Sea until they stepped forward. They acted on their faith, and that is what trust is. Trust is belief expressed. We must trust in the Lord for deliverance. No trust-no deliverance. Consider the rich young ruler of Matthew l9. Eternal life was at his disposal if he had been willing to trust in Jesus. Now let us consider the criteria Jesus applied to this situation as we seek to determine whether or not he trusted. If the young man had trusted in Jesus, was there some action required?: "Sell what you have, give it to the poor, and follow me." It is obvious that the young man was not willing to trust in Jesus, and it is obvious as to his share in the Kingdom. (Verse 23) These are quotations from Jesus. No trust-no share in the Kingdom. To argue that trust is not necessary, and that mental acquiescence is sufficient, makes about as much sense as hiring a money management consultant and then refusing to heed his advise. If you trusted in him you would put your money where he directed. No complying action-no trust. The rich young ruler was certainly not willing to trust his money to Jesus. He had faith but no trust. Else, why did he go away sorrowful? If he had not believed in Jesus, shouldn't he have gone away rejoicing, happy that he had been clever enough to keep some religious zealot from taking his money? But, the passage says that he went away sorrowful. He believed but he did not trust.

The lesson is clear. If we trust in Jesus for salvation can we, with impunity, refuse to follow His lead as the rich young ruler did? If we refuse His leading, can we expect any greater inheritance than the young ruler? We must trust in the Lord for deliverance. We must trust in the Lord in the Biblical sense of the word. Mental acquiescence does not qualify.

Please think on these things. I believe them to be true to the Word.

Write The Author

Back To Living Stones

This page hosted by Get your own Free Home Page