Is There a Difference Between Trusting and Believing in Jesus?

by David Servant

Although the distinction may appear subtle, understanding the difference between trusting and believing in Jesus is important—especially given how the phrase “trust Christ” is often used in modern evangelism. Misunderstanding the difference can carry serious spiritual and eternal consequences.

While the English verbs “believe” and “trust” overlap in meaning and are sometimes used interchangeably, they are not strictly synonymous. This is one reason New Testament translations so frequently use the phrases “believe in Jesus,” “believe in Him,” “believe in Me,” “believe in Christ,” or “believe in the Lord Jesus,” rather than parallel constructions that substitute “trust.”

We should be cautious when preachers or teachers depart from biblical language. Such departures can signal a subtle shift away from biblical theology. For example, the phrase “accept Jesus” is used far more often in many Christian circles than the biblical phrase “believe in Jesus.” This usage frequently accompanies a redefinition of the gospel that distorts biblical grace and minimizes or eliminates the necessity of repentance and ongoing obedience. It emphasizes that “you don’t have to do anything—just accept the gift.” People then convince themselves they have “accepted the gift” purely via a mental exercise while remaining on “the broad way that leads to destruction” (Matt. 7:13). A.W. Tozer referred to it as “the ‘accept Jesus’ heresy,” and for good reason.

Every Christian Believes This, Even Those Who Claim Otherwise

By David Servant

Note: This short teaching was originally published in June of 2025, but it seemed to me time to publish it again. – David

Imagine, for just a moment, a very evil man—a psychopath who ambushes unsuspecting people and murders them. He averages about one murder per week. Then he dies. Does God welcome him into heaven?

No one would answer “yes” to that question. Everyone believes that there are some sort of standards for gaining entrance into heaven, and someone who regularly commits murder does not meet the standard. The New Testament agrees: “Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer; and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him” (1 John 3:15, emphasis added).

What Makes False Doctrine Heretical or Blasphemous?

Heresy and blasphemy are two words often used in doctrinal disputes. When they are, it doesn’t generally result in any repentance by the accused heretics and blasphemers. More often, the labels drive a permanent wedge between warring Christians. For that reason, it is wise to use both words with caution.

On the other hand, avoiding both labels as a matter of practice is not biblical, because both are biblical labels based on biblical concepts. The authors of the New Testament epistles use them. They obviously believed that heresy and blasphemy can be judged. Should not those who know the Bible have the same discernment? It would seem reasonable to think so.

The trouble, as we all know, is that views of biblical doctrine within Christendom diverge widely. For that very reason, I have often been labeled a heretic, and sometimes judged worthy of death for it. (During those times, I’m glad I am not living in the Middle Ages!)

The Future Vindication of the Righteous

“Behold, I will cause those of the synagogue of Satan, who say that they are Jews and are not, but lie—I will make them come and bow down at your feet, and make them know that I have loved you” (Revelation 3:9).

Just as is the case with everything Jesus said to the seven churches in Asia, His words to the church in Philadelphia surely have wider application. I am persuaded that they pertain to all followers of the Lord Jesus Christ. He loves them all, and because He does, He will one day make their persecutors bow before them. Their enemies will have no choice. Jesus will “make them” (3:9) do it. They will be humiliated—as they deserve—and will reluctantly honor those whom they despised.

Why would Jesus force only one small group of persecutors in all of Christian history to bow before those they persecuted? Neither His love for His own nor His love of justice has diminished since He made that promise in Revelation 3:9. It is therefore safe to say that your persecutors will one day bow before you. The only hope they have of escaping that humiliation is repentance before they die.

Chapter 7

Limited Atonement

Finally we come to the L of the TULIP acronym, which stands for Limited Atonement. Because Calvinists believe that God unconditionally elected only certain people to be saved before the foundation of the world, they are faced with some difficult questions: Why does Scripture say that Jesus died for everyone? And Why would Jesus die for those who are predestined to be damned rather than saved?

The non-Calvinist has no such questions to wrestle with. Because God desires every person to repent and believe, Jesus died for all, making it possible for anyone who repents and believes in the Lord Jesus to receive eternal life through His substitutionary sacrifice. It is just that simple.

Chapter 6

Perseverance of the Saints

Because Calvinists believe that God shows His irresistible grace to totally depraved people whom He has unconditionally elected before time, they have no choice but to conclude that it is impossible for a genuinely saved person to forfeit his salvation. This is the essence of the Calvinistic doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints: true saints will persevere in faith, and those who do not were never truly saved in the first place.

Piper certainly holds this view. Amazingly, however, at the start of his chapter on Perseverance of the Saints, he states:

Election is unconditional, but glorification is not. There are many warnings in Scripture that those who do not hold fast to Christ can be lost in the end (p. 23, para. 2).

Piper is correct that Scripture contains many warnings addressed to those who do not hold fast to Christ. Indeed, such people will be lost in the end. It is astounding, however, that he cannot see the glaring contradiction in his own words. If a person is genuinely saved through God’s unconditional election and irresistible grace, then there is no possibility of that person losing salvation. Thus, if election is unconditional, glorification must also be unconditional. If one is elected, he must by definition eventually be glorified. Piper himself declared this very truth in the preceding paragraph:

It follows from what was just said [Piper’s interpretation of Romans 8:28–33] that the people of God will persevere. The foreknown are predestined, the predestined are called, the called are justified, and the justified are glorified. No one is lost from this group. To belong to this people is to be eternally secure (p. 23, para. 1).

Chapter 5

Unconditional Election, Part 3

Finally we come to Romans 9, having considered the eight chapters that precede it. Now we can read it in light of that context.

Paul begins by expressing his sincere love for his fellow Jews, even though most of them have rejected his gospel (9:1–3). Shortly thereafter he declares that to the Jews belongs the adoption as sons (9:4). This statement clearly contradicts the Calvinistic doctrine of unconditional election. Paul believed that adoption into God’s family belonged to every Jew. Each individual, however, must believe in Jesus if he is to enjoy the adoption that belongs to him. If he does not enjoy his rightful adoption, it is not God’s fault.

Paul affirms this fact just one verse later, stating, “But it is not as though the word of God has failed” (9:6). God’s word never fails. Paul’s Jewish opponents apparently argued that if his gospel were true, then God’s word had failed, because by Paul’s criteria most of the Jews had failed to obtain the salvation God had promised them.

Chapter 4

Unconditional Election, Part 2

In his booklet TULIP: What We Believe about the Five Points of Calvinism, Piper next turns to Romans 9, a favorite passage among Calvinists. When certain verses there are detached from their context, they can appear to support the Calvinistic doctrine of unconditional election. My foundational premise in what follows is that Paul did not contradict himself in his letter to the Romans. Therefore, if we find verses and passages in chapters 1–8 and 10–16 that contradict the Calvinistic idea of unconditional election (as well as total depravity and irresistible grace, since these doctrines are interdependent), we can be certain Paul was not endorsing any of those ideas in chapter 9.

As we will see, there are scores of verses and passages in those chapters that contradict the Calvinistic interpretation of Romans 9. As we look at them, it will become crystal clear that Paul was not endorsing in chapter 9 the Calvinistic idea that God decided to save only certain individuals. Rather, he was affirming the biblical truth that God decided to save Gentiles by grace through faith—the same way He saves descendants of Jacob/Israel.

Chapter 3

Unconditional Election, Part 1

So far we have covered the T and the I of the TULIP acronym. In this chapter and the next two, we will examine the U, which stands for Unconditional Election. This Calvinistic doctrine states that God, in eternity past, chose certain individuals for salvation. That election was not based on any merit in those chosen, nor on anything God foreknew about them. Calvinists point to the many Scriptures that use words such as chosen, elected, and predestined to support their claim.

No reasonable person would argue that the Bible does not say Christians have been chosen, elected, or predestined by God. The difference between Calvinists and non-Calvinists lies in how those terms are interpreted. Calvinists claim God’s election is unconditional; non-Calvinists believe it is conditional.

Chapter Two

Total Depravity and Irresistible Grace, Part 2

It is important that you have read the previous chapter before beginning this one, as this chapter builds directly on it. We will continue examining Calvinism’s first and fourth cardinal doctrines.

Does Being Dead in Sin Make Repentance Impossible?

Calvinists often ask: How can one who is “dead in his sins” possibly repent and believe? Is it not true that dead people can do nothing and are unable to respond to outside influences?