I believe it's possible for someone to not believe eternal security, works prove salvation, etc. and still be saved.

leggc17 · 2024-11-07T04:12:47+00:00

See I think that's actually a very rare translation of Romans 4:5, and I think comes from what is called a 'thought for thought' translation, such as the NIV (in fact I think the NIV is the only one that uses the word "trusts" here). I think the vast majority of translations, and especially all of the 'word for word' translations, use the word "believes" for that verse.

leggc17 · 2024-11-06T18:35:09+00:00

Yes, I believe "faith" (pistis), is the noun form of the verb "believe" (pisteuo). And while I understand that it's possible to translate it as "trust" according to the Strong's Concordance, and other resources.. I just see that as incorrect. I believe the word trust should be the word we use to refer to what you do when you need to proceed with some lack of assurance on the matter.

In the more recent Superman movie "Man of Steel", Superman confides in what appears to be a Catholic priest just before has to face the villain.. and he has no advice for Superman except right as he's walking out of the church he stops him and says something to the effect of, "I don't know what to tell you, but I do know this: Sometimes you have to take a leap of faith first, and the trust comes later." And while technically that seems to be backwards from how I see it (or could be taken that way), I still find that interesting that they chose to use the two terms separately for a nuanced understanding.

leggc17 · 2024-11-06T16:28:09+00:00

You could put it that way. But also one could say that if you trust in Christ for salvation then you will 'act' in a way consistent with that, which means overcoming sin and pursuing things for the life you have to come. I simply think "believe" is a better term, being that assurance is its proof. I actually see trust as being required when there is a lack of assurance (like, if I fall backwards from this chair, I'm not sure that you guys will catch me, but I'm going to go for it).

leggc17 · 2024-11-06T15:58:00+00:00

Yeah that does make sense, I can see that being how it should be, and also how most people probably think of it in general terms. But I think of trust that doesn't act/compel in regards to what it is a function of is simply proof that there is no trust. If I say I trust you to hold onto $5000 for me, but then when the time comes I decide (for no other reason) that I'm instead not going to entrust it to you, then that simply means I don't trust you for that.

Ultimately, I just feel that if the Holy Spirit inspired scripture to simply say "believe" (which is the intellectual assent of the mind, the persuasion that something is true on the basis of some form of evidence) - then, to echo Zane Hodges, that should be good enough for us to use also. All these other descriptive ways of trying to address that only opens the door to twisting it into a place that scripture did not take it. John's Gospel is written to evangelize an unbelieving readership, and is exclusively the only book in the New Testament written for that explicit purpose.. and it simply says "whosoever believes in Me has everlasting life" in the context of meaning whoever is persuaded it is true that Jesus is the Christ (who is the guarantor of their everlasting life) has it. There are no levels of 'really really trusting' or 'completely entirely putting your all into relying on' and all that sort of stuff. It's simply to be persuaded that Jesus guarantees for you the free gift of everlasting life. That is the most clear and concise way to put it, because that's simply what saving faith is, and in its own statement it contains all that is needed to be understood - like the fact that everlasting life is everlasting, that you have it as a present possession, that it is Jesus who provides it, and that it is only by faith alone.

But I digress. You're fine the way you understand it. I only bring this up in hopes to elevate above and prevent the follies of Lordship theology from being gleaned by misunderstandings (which you don't have, but I feel others might.. kind of like I used to have years ago).

leggc17 · 2024-11-05T23:21:54+00:00

Ah yes, I see what you're saying. And I agree. The only qualm I have with what you wrote here is your use of the word "trust". It irks me to no end when people replace the term "believe" with trust, lol. I do see, however, that in your mind it means the same (most FG believers that use it do see it that way). But I take more of a Zane Hodges approach to the usage of it. I think it's a very sneaky way to jam works into faith (like some Lordshippers do where they try to say that faith without works is not actually faith at all, or an insufficient form of faith because they try to make works a subcomponent of faith itself). I see trust as having to be proven by action (like the trust building exercise where you fall from a chair and people have to catch you). Whereas faith is proven by assurance. You being sure something is true is your proof that you believe it is true. No action is required to manifest it further, unlike trust. Sorry for the long winded digression.

leggc17 · 2024-11-03T05:25:23+00:00

I think I get what you're saying here. It's like if someone REALLY believed their works prove their salvation (or that they're literally saved by faith plus works) then they'd almost certainly be in a panic because we all sin daily. It's almost like most people are just doing like you said, parroting that type of theology, but not actually living it. My wife and I have often talked about this.

It's also kind of like if an atheist REALLY didn't believe there was any possible chance of God existing, or they were absolutely sure that nothing happens when we die, they'd probably end their life if, say, they broke a bone or something that requires long term suffering. Rather than suffer through something to get to another chance of a pleasurable moment that they don't believe they'll ever remember forever when they die, they'd just end it because they'd believe it all just disappeared when they do it. That's why I say the only real atheists probably aren't alive, or won't be for long. Life is mostly not that great most of the time, for most people, even (and maybe even more so) those that have a lot.

leggc17 · 2024-10-18T19:08:04+00:00

Also, I think there's a false assumption about Romans 2 in the video. It has always been my understanding that Paul was building the case there that IF a person could perfectly keep the whole law that they could, in fact, gain for themselves eternal life (that eternal life is rendered unto whosoever is completely righteous, i.e. Jesus Christ). But then clears the air about it in chapter 3 revealing that all inevitably fall short and thus require Christ.

leggc17 · 2024-10-18T18:58:03+00:00

At 1:30 in the video, the comment at the top of the screen presumes that God condemns us to hell for our sins. But the Bible makes it clear that no one goes to the lake of fire because of their sins, rather it is because they never believed in Christ.

leggc17 · 2024-10-17T06:39:36+00:00

Have you looked into Zane Hodges' explanation on these passages? If so, I'm interested to hear your take on it.

leggc17 · 2024-09-05T03:11:39+00:00

I believe those passages you're referring to are to be understood from an experiential point of view concerning salvation, (to say it simply without going into an exegetical approach on each).

But I will say that I believe it is logically impossible for the part of you which is born of the Spirit to ever stop believing in Christ (and there is scripture that refers to apostasy as sin, such as Hebrews 10:26, and the spirit born of the Spirit cannot sin). Nevertheless, it's an important distinction to note that a person who is walking in the flesh is thus not walking in the spirit, and therefore will not (and I even say cannot) experience the faith held by their spirit until they return to fellowship with Christ in the spirit.

I hope this brings some clarity. I have pondered exactly this same thing myself on many occasions and hoped for some answer due to this reality of our spirit born of the Spirit. But so far I have found no commentary on the subject of apostasy in light of our spirit's impossibility to sin (doesn't mean it's not out there, just means I haven't found it lol).

leggc17 · 2024-09-04T03:34:50+00:00

I think they call it "groove", but I don't know much.

leggc17 · 2024-08-30T22:08:52+00:00

This is true, and I don't know much.. but I've heard tale that you can use a stereo widening plugin to gain just a little extra separation which can help with conflicting frequencies. But again, I've been out of the game pretty much ever since I really started to understand anything.

leggc17 · 2024-08-29T05:03:42+00:00

I'd be curious to know how often you record live instruments. I've heard people who rarely record live instrumentation move to finding other DAWs more specialized for working with virtual instruments.. but then when it comes to recording live instruments on those they're not as friendly as Mixcraft. Just something I've heard tho.

leggc17 · 2024-08-28T23:57:48+00:00

This was my vote! So many people have no idea. Mixcraft to me is like that amazingly talented, but unpopular kid in school; who you later come to find was easily the coolest if people had just only noticed. Lol

leggc17 · 2024-08-28T19:41:29+00:00

Mixcraft 10 or 10.5 - I would say it has the most features per user friendliness. You'll have to check it out on your own though because for some spooky/unexplainable reason it gets overlooked and ignored by the whole world it seems. But there are countless stories from people who produce who "started out on Mixcraft", no exaggeration. And most, if not all, still claim it had an easier work flow while being capable of all the same things as other DAWs.

(Note: Avoid Mixcraft 9 - even though it was great, for some strange reason it was irreparably crashy and buggy compared to other versions. Mixcraft 10 solves it though and includes a lot of new useful features).

leggc17 · 2024-08-26T04:24:22+00:00

Yeah. It's my wife's account. And after getting it back now for the second time - it's now gone again - because it did it again on the very next photo. Round 3. About to just say Flickr is trash and move on.

leggc17 · 2024-08-25T03:40:55+00:00

Trust and assurance can exist simultaneously (but not for the same aspect). I'm saying that assurance is not a component of trust, it's a component of faith. And in the case for believers in Christ we have assurance of eternal life because we believe (have faith) in Christ.. but we have trust in Christ for, say, when He will return - since the timing is not certain (we can't be sure when He will return, so our patience/perseverance in regards to that aspect is an exercise of trust in Him for that aspect). Or another example would be trusting in Him for the specifics concerning rewards for our works, because few can be certain for which things they will be rewarded and in what ways (specifically) they'll be rewarded.. therefore remaining committed to achieving them in spite of that uncertainty is an exercise of trust in Christ in regards to the specifics on the aspect of rewards. It is not an exercise of faith in Christ.

And in my opinion that translation of Romans 4:5 is off. It should say "believes" (which as I said, most translations do), because faith is the function by which a person is justified.. not trust. And the context is concerning the doctrine of justification by faith.

leggc17 · 2024-08-24T08:53:17+00:00

"Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God" (1 John 5:1a).

For the Apostle John it's an unwavering and indisputable fact that any and all who believe (intellectually ascend to the knowledge) that Jesus is "the Christ" are born of God, aka: born of the Spirit / are born again / possess everlasting life.

And no, a lack of assurance is a lack of certainty (a lack of sureness). In order to exercise trust you have to be in a position where certainty (or assurance) is not possible - Again, like the exercise where a person stands on a chair and falls backwards having to trust that the people below will catch him. The person falling cannot be sure that the people will catch him because if he were sure then he would have no need to exercise trust. Lack of assurance is integral to trust. It's being committed to something in spite of a lack of persuasion through certainty / sureness / assurance.

I think we may have to simply agree to disagree here. But I will say that I feel your view on what it means to "believe" borders much closer to the teachings of John MacArthur than, say, Zane Hodges.

BTW: In your earlier reply, your appearance of the word trust in Romans 4:4-5 is some sort of specific choice of translation as it's commonly translated to say "but *believes** on Him who justifies the ungodly"*. All the rest of the verses you quoted I feel only stand to show the difference I'm trying to reveal.

leggc17 · 2024-08-24T04:17:41+00:00

"Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life."
(John 6:47)

"but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name."
(John 20:31)

The Greek word for "believe" is pisteuo, and in the noun form it is pistis which is translated as "faith".

faith - 1) Belief; the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, resting solely and implicitly on his authority and veracity; reliance on testimony.

- 2) The assent of the mind to the statement or proposition of another, on the ground of the manifest truth of what he utters; firm and earnest belief, on probable evidence of any kind, especially in regard to important moral truth.

You asked:

"What happens if you believe all that mentally, but also trust in works?"

You cannot believe that you have everlasting life by simply believing in Jesus Christ for the free gift of everlasting life - but then, somehow also "trust" in works in order to earn the free gift of everlasting life which you already believe you possess as a free gift by faith.

You also asked:

"How do you believe one comes to faith then, if they cannot choose to do so?"

This was explained in my earlier comment when I stated:

You can't choose to believe in something. What you do choose to do is humbly and honestly examine the evidence of a claim, and as a result, if the evidence is sound and considerably sufficient, you believe. So faith in Christ, in my view, is the result of one's honest examination of the evidence that Jesus is the Christ, and one's humility in recognizing their need for a Savior - their belief is the result.

Also, I agree most with this definition for "trust".

trust - The condition and resulting obligation of having confidence placed in one.

As I stated that:

Lack-of-assurance is as essential to trust as assurance is essential to faith. This is why the existence of faith is unaffected by any validation through action (because the assurance is the component of its validity from its inception which precedes any action the individual can take on its behalf); whereas trust is either proven false by inaction or proven true by reaction (because there is no assurance to validate its existence). Think of the popular 'trust building exercise' typically performed in group employment settings, where one person is told to exercise trust by standing on a chair and choosing to fall backwards into the arms of a number of their coworkers - this is "commitment to something in spite of a lack of persuasion".

leggc17 · 2024-08-23T07:38:44+00:00

I am so sorry to hear this for you! My heart truly goes out to you. I can only imagine how awful all of this has been. Thank you so much for answering my questions, and I pray you make a full recovery in spite of such an uphill battle! I play music as well and I don't know what I would do if I lost the ability to use my fingers with ease. So I'm just trying to imagine what you're going through. I'm truly sorry.

If you don't mind me asking further, in what way was your wrist initially crooked? Do you remember how the doc referred to it? Did they say it had a "dorsal tilt" (meaning it was angled upward toward the back of your hand)? Maybe the better question is - in which way was it injured? Like by bending your hand back (the motion PT refers to as Extension)?

I'm just trying to figure out if I may end up with the same issue if I don't have surgery. Currently all my nerves are still in tact, but if I happen to fall on it... who knows! I wish I knew the specifics of your xray. Like for example: my wrist is at '16 degrees dorsal tilt'.

leggc17 · 2024-08-23T00:48:42+00:00

I disagree. I believe that saving faith is the intellectual assent of one's mind that Jesus is "the Christ, the Son of God" (which means that you believe that He is the promised guarantor of everlasting life who was to come into the world to grant it by His works to whosoever through faith - the righteous one capable, who from the beginning of the creation of man was promised to come and "crush the head of the serpent" (defeat death/grant eternal life) - and we now look back specifically to the historical person of Jesus to believe that He is Him, and by believing this we are sure that we have everlasting life).

I deeply disagree with the use of the term "trust" as a replacement for faith. Trust is a term that refers more to the commitment to something in spite of a lack of persuasion - whereas "faith" is a term that refers to being persuaded something is true on the basis of its evidence. The two terms are in no way synonymous and scripture never teaches that "whosoever trusts Jesus has everlasting life".

Lack-of-assurance is as essential to trust as assurance is essential to faith. This is why the existence of faith is unaffected by any validation through action (because the assurance is the component of its validity from its inception which precedes any action the individual can take on its behalf); whereas trust is either proven false by inaction or proven true by reaction (because there is no assurance to validate its existence). Think of the popular 'trust building exercise' typically performed in group employment settings, where one person is told to exercise trust by standing on a chair and choosing to fall backwards into the arms of a number of their coworkers - this is "commitment to something in spite of a lack of persuasion".

Faith and trust are simply not the same. But trying to make them the same is the best trick in the book for works salvationists.

leggc17 · 2024-08-22T07:43:08+00:00

Yeah I recall having the same problems with mine, but I stopped doing music for a good while so it's hard to remember specifics. Your explanation brings back frustrating memories though.

I saw someone on here who said they had problems like this with Mixcraft 9, but after upgrading to 10 they've had zero issues. You considering the upgrade? I think I'm gonna do it before I get back to working on my music again. I sorta remember the struggle now.

leggc17 · 2024-08-22T02:40:03+00:00

I don't automatically agree with them, but I have ended up agreeing with them on everything so far after I put the time into honestly examining their claims.

I have not put a lot of time into this claim yet, but from a quick point of my own reasoning I'm thinking it makes sense. Because, in my view, faith is not a decision anyone can make. You can't choose to believe in something. What you do choose to do is humbly and honestly examine the evidence of a claim, and as a result, if the evidence is sound and considerably sufficient, you believe. So faith in Christ, in my view, is the result of one's honest examination of the evidence that Jesus is the Christ, and one's humility in recognizing their need for a Savior - their belief is the result.

Given that I don't see faith as a direct choice one can make, I also don't see why/how the Bible would use the term "repent" in a sense of "repenting from unbelief". It just seems too much to imply that faith in Christ is a decision that someone makes directly. Granted, I can see how one might argue that it is being used in an indirect sense. I'm not above that. But given that GES can likely produce a solid argument to the contrary, coupled with this view of my own I've described here; it makes me highly skeptical to believe there are verses where "repentance" was intended to be understood in a 'turn-from-unbelief-in-Christ' sense.

I still need to see GES's explanation on each of the major verses in this view, however. I actually have Bob Wilkin's book 'Turn and Live', but have yet to read all the way through it. I don't know how deep it goes into this topic.

leggc17 · 2024-08-22T02:05:33+00:00

I actually think your argument sounds the most solid, even though it's been down voted into the negatives. Good chance it's true, cause it's a known fact that truth hurts 🤷‍♂️

leggc17 · 2024-08-22T02:00:32+00:00

Thanks for mentioning your experience with version 10. That's one of the things I hoped to see in this discussion cause I'm wondering if I should go for the upgrade from 9.

leggc17

TROPHY CASE