Gospel Guidebook: Getting and Keeping It Right 
한국어 日本語
Q&A on Faith
by Robert P. TerryUpdated May 11, 2026
This Q&A is a work in progress and subject to revision. It currently has 29 questions and answers.
Q1a: What does it mean to believe the Gospel?↑
A1a: By the word Gospel, I assume you mean God's message of salvation for sinners. In this case, believing the Gospel would mean understanding and being persuaded that a salvific proposition is true. A salvific proposition is the meaning of a declarative statement, which if believed, leads to the enjoyment of salvation. The most prominent salvific proposition in the Bible is this: "but these have been 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). If you understand and believe the proposition that "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God," then you have life in His name. All other salvific propositions are rooted in Jesus being the Christ, the Son of God. For example, in John 11:25-26 we read, "Jesus said to her, 'I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me shall live even if he dies, and everyone who lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?'" If you believe this proposition, then you have life in His name because Jesus' statement that He is the resurrection and the life presupposes that He is the Christ, the Son of God. This is why Martha answered Him by saying, "Yes, Lord; I have believed that You are the Christ, the Son of God, even He who comes into the world." It really is this simple. For more information, see the article What is the Gospel and the Nature of Faith?
Q1b: Technically speaking, what exactly does it mean to believe something?
A1b: To believe something means to be persuaded by the evidence for it. However, it is important to distinguish between inaugural belief and diachronic belief.
Technically speaking, an inaugural belief (i.e., the inauguration or inception of a belief) is the involuntary doxastic attitude of being persuaded by the evidence for a proposition. This means that belief is not a voluntary act of the will, and, as such, people are not able to choose their beliefs. Rather, beliefs are at the mercy of the evidence (excepting non-rational and non-epistemic beliefs, if such mental states even qualify as beliefs). You are either persuaded by the evidence for something or you are not, and there is nothing you can do directly to force yourself to be persuaded by something you find unpersuasive. This means that inaugural belief is a passive response.
In contrast, a diachronic belief (i.e., ongoing belief) is an inaugurated belief that is being maintained explicitly by the volition (without presuming libertarian control) of the believer and influenced implicitly by other factors, such as external stimuli, desires, bias, etc. The volition (i.e, the will) commits to certain actions regarding the diachronic belief, such as curating the evidence that the mind is exposed to and determining how to deliberate new evidence for or against the diachronic belief. A diachronic belief is an inaugurated belief subject to (in the sense of being influenced by, but not dependent on) the active response of the volition.
This distinction between inaugural belief and diachronic belief is very important as we read the Bible. The faith of justification by faith is an inaugural belief. It is being persuaded by the evidence that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. The Apostle Paul refers to it as recognizing the righteousness of God revealed in the Gospel of Christ (Romans 1:16-17, 2 Corinthians 4:3-6). It is a passive response. However, from that point onward, as an inaugurated or diachronic belief, it is subject to the active response of the volition. James says that diachronic faith apart from works is dead (i.e., idle or useless) by itself (James 2:17, 20). This is because inaugural belief and diachronic belief are the same thing, merely the involuntary doxastic attitude of being persuaded by the evidence for a thing, with the exception that diachronic belief is maintained by the volition. This means that faith, whether inaugural or diachronic, is incapable of producing works. This is why James continues by saying that diachronic faith needs to be combined with works and that works perfect diachronic faith (James 2:22). Like a gentle wind blowing on a dim flame, thus works are able to strengthen faith, or as James would put it, "the spirit of works needs to empower the body of faith" (James 2:26). Now, this concept of works strengthening diachronic faith is totally consistent with the nature of diachronic faith, since diachronic faith is, in fact, maintained by the work of the volition. If this is understood, it becomes immediately obvious why James could talk about faith and works the way he did. James was not talking about some Hegelian dialectic in which so-called "true faith" is the synthesis of some "bare faith" and works, nor was he talking about some religious faith that produces works. Once faith is seen as an involuntary doxastic attitude of belief that, once inaugurated, can be strengthened or weakened by the active response of the will, influenced by other factors (such as the intentional state of desire), used as a variable in creating the conditions necessary to perform works, and combined with works, all talk about "true faith" and religious faith must stop. People who refuse to repudiate their "true faith" and religious faith are simply practicing a form of works salvation, regardless of how loudly they may shout "faith alone."
Q2: But what does it mean to believe in Jesus?↑
A2: To believe in Jesus means to be persuaded that the propositions that represent Him or are advanced by Him are true. This is evident from Jesus' question to Martha, "Do you believe this?" mentioned above in John 11:25-26. Jesus was referring to the assertion He had just made, namely that "He is the resurrection and the life." As indicated by Martha in the next verse, He was identifying Himself with "the Christ, the Son of God, even He who comes into the world." If you believe the things that Jesus says about Himself, or the testimony given about Him by His apostles in the Bible, then you have believed in Him. Although it is quite technical, you might be interested the article Equivalent Meaning of Believe Expressions.
Q3: Does Jesus become our Savior when we believe in Him?↑
A3: Yes, but only in the sense that we come to recognize, experience, and enjoy Him as Savior. When we believe in Jesus we are not appropriating Him to make Him our Savior or compelling God in any way to save us for Jesus' sake. Rather, when we believe in Jesus, we believe in Him as Savior because He is the Savior, not a potential savior who requires our use of Him or advance toward Him (regardless of whether such use or advance is ascribed to the Holy Spirit or not). Jesus accomplished justification for the elect at the cross, and this same justification is revealed to them when they become persuaded of it through the message of the Gospel. Thereafter, they come to enjoy the benefits of it, which include, among other things, regeneration, eternal life, sanctification, and ultimately glorification.
Q4: But doesn't the Bible say that we have to believe to be justified?↑
A4: To answer this question, it is important to understand the meaning of the words "believe" and "justify." If we understand these words, then we'll understand why the Bible actually says that everyone who believes is justified (Acts 13:39). The word justification, when used in a salvific context, refers to being "declared righteous." It is the opposite of condemnation, which means to be "declared guilty" (see, for example, Romans 8:33-34). As for the word "believe," please see my answers to Q&A #1 and #2 above. By correctly understanding the nature of belief, we can understand that belief represents its propositional object. In the case of justification, the propositional object of belief is the proposition that Jesus accomplished a justifying act on the cross as the Christ. In other words, belief is being persuaded that Christ performed a work that consummated in a declaration of righteousness. This is why the Apostle Paul says that belief in the Gospel reveals the righteousness of God (Romans 1:16-17). Justification was accomplished for the elect at the cross, and it was certified by the resurrection (Romans 4:25). This means that from God's perspective the elect are justified regardless of whether they believe the Gospel or not (and it is only a matter of time before He starts to administer the benefits of justification to them). When the elect do believe the Gospel, this same declaration of righteousness that was accomplished by Christ reaches their mind, cleanses their conscience in recognition that there is a justifying righteousness, and vindicates God (see Luke 7:29, Romans 3:26). As can be deduced from my answer to Q&A #3, this means that belief is really a benefit of justification, not a cause or means of justification. If Jesus had not justified sinners at the cross, the concept of believing in Jesus for justification would not even exist. It is only because His work at the cross was the all-sufficient work of justification (as opposed to being only the ground of justification or best means of obtaining justification) that justification by faith exists. Therefore, when the Bible speaks of justification by faith (Gr. pistis, which could also be translated as "belief," since it is the cognate noun of the verb "believe" and often used in the same context and explained by the verb "believe"), it is referring to the recognition of the justification accomplished by Christ. There is nothing virtuous or mystical about faith itself. We must always remember that faith represents its object, and "what faith is about is exactly what its propositional object is about" (see the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy's discussion on "belief" here).
Q5: Are there any consequences of not believing justification was accomplished at the cross?↑
A5: People who deny that justification was accomplished at the cross and insist that justification only occurs when the elect believe distort the meaning of believe and transform it into an appropriating act that only goes by the name faith. For, if Jesus didn't accomplish justification for the elect on the cross, then there is really nothing for them to believe in. They aren't believing in Jesus for justification, for they insist that Jesus didn't accomplish justification. So, rather than believing that Christ accomplished justification at the cross, which if true, would be true regardless of whether it is believed or not, they endeavor to perform some act they call "faith" to appropriate something they call "justification" in order to make true that which was not true until it is appropriated. To achieve this, they make use of what they think are the merits of Christ crucified as the means by which they may be qualified to perform their appropriating act and thereby be justified. In other words, they mingle their appropriating act, which they ascribe to the Holy Spirit working their hearts, with Christ crucified in order to obtain their desired goal of justification. And in this manner, they ingraft themselves into the work of justification, create a distinction between themselves and other sinners, and solemnly pray, "'God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are,' for I have made full use of your appointed means in Christ crucified as the only ground by which I have received this justification."
Q6: So, they disguise their appropriating act under the name of faith?↑
A6: I wouldn't go so far as to say that they disguise their appropriating act, for they actually think that faith is an appropriating act and that is how they define it (see Louis Berkhof's description, especially his explanation of fiducia here). However, if this weren't bad enough, they add drunkenness to thirst (Deut. 29:19) by referring to faith as "true faith" and "hearty trust" (Heidelberg Catechism), "upright faith" (Belgic Confession), "true and living faith" (Canons of Dort), "precious faith" (1646 Primitive Baptist Confession of Faith; which is not the "like-precious faith" that recognizes the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ described in 2 Peter 1:1-7, but supposedly a work of God in the heart that includes "faith, repentance, love, joy, hope, and all the graces of the Spirit"), "saving faith" (Westminster Confession of Faith), "lively faith" (1689 Baptist Confession of Faith), and so on. By modifying their appropriating act with modifiers like "saving," "true," and "hearty," they wish to further distinguish themselves above other sinners who practice their appropriating act amiss. This is how they relish in their self-righteousness and join hands with other "true believers" to lament the carnal state of the church and the need for true revival. Outside the world of Reformed theology (which must bear the brunt of my criticism, for it is the Reformed tradition that loves to wave the banner of "faith alone"), other theological traditions might refer to their appropriating act of faith as a personal relationship with Jesus, choosing Jesus, accepting Jesus into the heart, or something similar. Some theologians may, more or less, correctly describe faith along the lines of being mental assent, but then paradoxically refer to it as an appropriating act or volitional act, thereby revealing they also don't properly understand the Gospel and its implications. (For a critique of descriptions of faith outside the mainstream Reformed tradition, epitomized by Louis Berkhof's description above, see my articles Problems with Free Grace's Description of Faith, Gordon Clark Was Wrong about the Nature of Faith, and John Gill Was Wrong about the Nature of Faith.)
A7: The concept of the elect being justified before they believe is a biblical one, just as the concept of the elects' sins being imputed to Christ on the cross, even before many of them came into existence, is a biblical one. If sins that had not even existed yet were imputed to Christ, why should it be thought strange that righteousness should be imputed (or conversely, that sin should not be imputed) to the elect even before many of them come into existence? And if it be so for the elect before they even exist, why should it be any different for them when they actually come into existence? The imputation of the elects' sins to Christ, long before many of them even existed, implies that many of the elect were justified long before they believed.
The fact is that there are many verses in the Bible that explicitly state or imply that justification of the elect happened at the cross before many of them even existed, let alone believed the Gospel. These include Isaiah 53:11, Matthew 1:21, Mark 10:45, John 19:30, Romans 3:25-26, Romans 4:25, Romans 5:6-11, Romans 8:31-34, Colossians 2:12-14, 1 Peter 1:18-20, and 1 Peter 2:24.
Although the exact phrase "justified unbeliever" is not in the Bible, it can be easily deduced by comparing Romans 8:31-34 with Romans 11:28-32. These verses show that the elect were justified at the cross despite many of them still living as enemies of the Gospel. These enemies of the Gospel were destined to believe and enjoy the benefits of the justification accomplished by Christ, for the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable.
Q8: Are you saying Christ was imputed with each and every sin of the elect?↑
A8: The Bible teaches that Christ did not only bear sin in a general sense, but also sins in a specific sense. Sin is often described in the Bible using accounting or financial terms, and Christ had to pay the debt and redeem the captives by paying the ransom price, even to the last penny (Matthew 5:26). So, although it may be unfathomable to us how Christ could have suffered more or less than He did depending on how many sins He bore, and while it might be easier to just say that He bore some general penalty of sin, it is the consistent teaching of Scripture that Christ bore all the individual sins of the elect (Leviticus 16:21, Isaiah 53:5, 11, Romans 3:25, 4:25, 5:16, 1 Cor. 15:3, Hebrews 9:28, 1 Peter 2:24, 1 John 2:2 etc.). When reading Leviticus 16, it is amazing how many times the Scripture mentions that the atonement was for "all the sins" of the assembly. Likewise, when the Apostle Paul said, "I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me" (Gal. 2:20), he is indicating that Christ did not only die for the elect as a whole, but also for each and every individual member of the elect. In other words, Christ loved individual people, among whom was the Apostle. In light of this, when Christ was imputed with the sins of the elect, before many of them were even born, He actually bore all the individual sins of each and every one of them.
A9a: The context shows that the Apostle Paul was advocating for justification "by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law." As soon as this contrast is recognized, the meaning of "believing that we may be justified" and "seeking to be justified" becomes crystal clear. Those expressions have nothing to do with a potential justification that sinners must appropriate to themselves. In fact, the very opposite is true. Those expressions speak of "seeking" Christ's accomplished work of justification through the eyes of faith instead of "seeking" one own's justification through works of law (which would include that "appropriating act" that I mentioned in Q&A #5 and #6). That this interpretation is correct is apparent not only by the contrast between faith and works, but also by the fact that the Apostle tells us that justification by faith reflects the grace of God in the death of Christ (v. 21) so that the sinner can come to say, "I have been crucified with Christ" and "I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and delivered Himself up for me" (v. 19). Faith recognizes the all-sufficient work accomplished by Christ at the cross. This understanding also applies to other verses like Philippians 3:9.
Q9b: Are we justified by the "faith of Christ" or by "faith in Christ"?↑
A9b: We are justified by the obedient life and death of Christ, but in terms of justification by faith, we are justified by "faith in Christ." As mentioned above, faith (in its normal usage, excepting usage in figures of speech) represents its propositional object, and when Christ is its propositional object, then faith recognizes what Christ accomplished.
Now, I'd like to say a few things about the translation issue regarding whether to translate the genitive form of the noun in the phrase pistis Christou as an objective genitive, "faith in Christ," or as a subjective genitive "faith of Christ." If the correct translation is "faith of Christ," then justification is either by Jesus' plain old belief in God or by Jesus' faithfulness. If the former is true, then Jesus would not have needed to die on the cross. His belief in God would have been enough. If the latter is true, then faith is faithfulness (i.e., obedience), and justification by faith must follow the same pattern of faithfulness, which is nothing short of works salvation. Because Jesus was representing the elect, faith can't mean one thing when applied to Jesus and then a completely other thing when applied to the elect. To treat faith in such a way would be completely arbitrary and would turn faith into some dark matter-like thing that could change meanings at the whim of the interpreter (and it is for this reason that some people have delved into wild interpretations, such as a "seed of faith" being in elect infants, or faith being a life force within a person that enables him to become righteous through Christ-produced works that transform his character).
Although in recent years the subjective genitive has gained popularity among some scholars, the traditional understanding has been the objective genitive. Roy A. Harrisville, III, in his paper ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ: Witness of the Fathers showed conclusively that the early church patristic writings (both Greek and Latin) unanimously favored the objective genitive. Harrisville, III, concluded his section on the subjective genitive by saying, "In every instance cited above, the subjective faith referred to (πίστις αὐτοῦ) was some form of human faith, either that of Abraham, St. Paul, or an anonymous Christian. Nowhere do we find the Πίστις Χριστοῦ formulation understood subjectively by the early Fathers." As for early English Bibles, it is interesting that the Coverdale Bible of 1535 translates πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (pisteos Iesou Christou) in Romans 3:22 as the objective genitive "faith on Iesus Christ." This is significant because it means that the early English Bible translators were aware of the objective genitive translation of the Greek. All other early English Bibles translate it as "faith of Jesus Christ," but we must not jump to the hasty conclusion that these translators preferred the subjective genitive interpretation. The phrase "faith of Jesus Christ" could possibly be an English archaism for "faith in Jesus Christ." In fact, the paper The Objective Genitive and "Run-Awayes Eyes" shows that the objective genitive was in common use in Elizabethan English.
In addition to the historical problems faced by the subjective genitive interpretation, there are also some exegetical problems. Moises Silva said the following in Volume 3 of the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and Exegesis (see especially page 769): [With regard to the debate as a whole, I happen to believe, naively perhaps, that the evidence is not all that ambiguous—or to put it more accurately, that the ambiguities in the data are plainly resolved by Paul's many unambiguous statements. If by pistis Christou (which in isolation can indeed signify any number of things) the apostle had meant either "Christ's faith" or "Christ's faithfulness," it would have been ridiculously easy for him to make that point clear beyond dispute. Among various possibilities, he could have, for example, indicated—in the same contexts—one or two ways in which Jesus believed and how those acts of faith were relevant to the matter at hand. Or he could have told us—again, in the same contexts—that his message of dikaiosyne ("righteousness, justification") is true because Christos pistos estin ("Christ is faithful"). What could have been simpler? And considering the theological importance of this issue, one would think that he might have made a special effort to clarify matters. Instead, if some scholars are to be believed, Paul did not have enough sense to realize that the phrase pistis Christou is ambiguous. And to make matters worse, he unwittingly misled his readers by using the verb pisteuo with Christos as direct object again and again in the very same passages that have the ambiguous phrase! His bungling proved spectacularly successful, for in the course of nearly two millennia, virtually every reader—including ancient scholars for whom Greek was their native language—understood the phrase to mean "faith in Christ" and gave no hint that it might mean something else.]
Q10: Are you saying that belief is not necessary to be justified?↑
A10: Again, justification was accomplished for the elect at the cross, so it is true for the elect regardless of whether they believe it or not. However, belief is necessary in terms of the elects' recognition, experience, and enjoyment of it and its benefits, and belief is also necessary to the extent that God uses it in His elect to fulfill his purposes in the world, which includes conforming the elect to the image of the First-born, preaching the Gospel, manifesting His righteousness revealed therein, and vindicating and glorifying Himself.
Q11: Does this mean that there are some elect who never become believers?↑
A11: All the elect become believers, with the exception of exceptional cases, such as elect children who die in infancy and the mentally incapacitated. Infants and the mentally incapacitated do not have the faculties of the mind necessary to believe propositions, so in the case that any of them are elect, they never become believers, yet they are justified by what Jesus did for them at the cross. As for any others, if, according to the inscrutable counsel of God, God decides to withhold the benefit of belief from any of His elect in exceptional cases, then that is His prerogative. I can only imagine that these exceptional cases (if they actually exist) do much to exalt the all-sufficiency of the work of Christ.
Q12: So, why did Jesus say that it was necessary to be born again to enter the kingdom of God?↑
A12: Nobody can enter heaven without being born again. That is the rule, and there are no exceptions. However, the new birth was made possible by the resurrection of Christ (1 Peter 1:3), which in itself was made possible because He accomplished justification on the cross (Romans 4:25 NASB). Therefore, the new birth is also a benefit of justification. In John 3:13, right after introducing the new birth to Nicodemus, Jesus said that nobody had ever ascended up into heaven except for the Son of Man. This means that none of the Old Testament saints were born again. Again, as mentioned by Peter, the new birth only became possible after the resurrection of Christ, He being the first-born from the dead (Colossians 1:18). The Old Testament saints were waiting in Abraham's bosom (Luke 16:22) until the resurrection. This why Hebrews 11:39-40 says, "And all these, having gained approval through their faith, did not receive what was promised, because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they should not be made perfect." This is instructive because it shows that the new birth is not strictly necessary in the sense that it must be experienced during this life (although as a general rule, everyone on this side of the resurrection of Jesus Christ does experience it during their lives). The Old Testament saints were born again in the afterlife because Christ accomplished justification for them and rose from the dead. Also, in line with Q&A #11 above, it is also the reason why faith is another benefit of justification that is not strictly necessary to experience in this life. Because Christ accomplished justification on the cross, elect babies that die unborn or in infancy and the mentally incapacitated can still enter heaven. Like the Old Testament saints, they will experience the new birth in the afterlife, presumably immediately after they die. Christ accomplished everything for His people. Nothing that Christ does in His people in this life is strictly necessary. If any of the elect do not experience the new birth in this life, they will surely experience it in the afterlife when they are received into glory for His name's sake.
Q13: But didn't John the Baptist believe from his mother's womb?↑
A13: No, he didn't believe. The Scripture says that he was filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb, which is something quite different from believing. We have to be careful not to transform faith into something mystical that moves the focus from what Christ did for sinners to what the Holy Spirit is supposedly doing in sinners. Some people like to speak of elect infants having the "seed of faith" in them, but this is not helpful for two reasons. (1) There is no biblical or secular evidence that infants can believe propositions, which requires understanding and assenting to the meaning of declarative statements. (2) The people who teach this "seed of faith" doctrine either transform faith into a principle of works (where the seed eventually produces fruit; the fruit being inherent in the seed), or an appropriating instrument, both of which move the focus away from what Christ did for sinners and place it on what the Holy Spirit is supposedly doing in sinners. Now, as for being filled with the Holy Spirit, it can be characteristic of justified people, but it is not a cause or means of justification. Consider how Balaam, Saul, and Caiaphas were moved by the Holy Spirit to say and do things that were not of themselves.
A14a: No. Without the Holy Spirit enlightening the mind to understand and believe the content of the Gospel, nobody is capable of believing the Gospel. Human nature is at enmity with the Gospel because of its fallen state. Whenever a person believes the Gospel, it is only because God has performed a miracle that caused him to believe. But please remember that faith is a benefit of justification and is just the mind being persuaded that the salvific propositions of the Gospel are true, not a cause or means of justification. The Holy Spirit gives faith as a gift to the elect so that they can know what was true even before they believed it, namely that Christ accomplished justification for sinners on the cross.
Q14b: Is faith evidence of justification?↑
A14b: Believing the Gospel provides evidence in itself, but faith itself is not evidence. The moment you become conscious of faith is the moment your eyes have departed from the Gospel. Instead of looking for evidence of faith, or even looking to faith as evidence, I suggest you just believe the Gospel.
A15: For starters, I think Ephesians 2:3 needs to be interpreted based on the same principles of Galatians 4:1-7 where the child, being heir of all things of the Father, differs nothing from other children, being under guardians and managers until the time appointed by the Father. In his experience, the child is a slave, but in his person, he is heir of all. From this we see that while the child's experience is temporarily the same as all other children, this child is, in his person, not the same as all other children and was never in danger of being condemned to a life of bondage. Likewise, the people referred to in Ephesians 2:3 were never in danger of being condemned to God's wrath, although, in their experience, they were just as deserving of it and no different from those who shall come under it.
Just as we should not isolate Galatians 4:3 from its context, neither should we isolate Ephesians 2:3 from its context. In the very next verses in Ephesians 2:4-5, it says that these same people were objects of "His great love" even while they were "dead in transgressions." This means that even though they were "by nature children of wrath, even as the rest," they were only characterized as such by their fallen nature, but unlike the rest, they were set apart by God on account of His great love for them. I believe this might be why the Apostle Paul qualified his statement by adding the words "by nature." Please note how the statement would have actually been stronger if he left out the words "by nature." I think he might have wanted to distinguish between what the elect were by nature (i.e., in the experience dead in trespasses and sin and no different from other natural sons of Adam) and who the elect were in their persons (i.e., positionally secure as beloved people whom Christ saved). The Apostle Paul says something similar about unbelieving Israelites who were destined to eventually believe the Gospel in Romans 11:28, "As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes." Also, it is important to notice that Romans 8:31-34 teaches that Christ justified all the elect at the cross. Therefore, by comparing Romans 11:28-32 with Romans 8:31-34, we actually see that the elect are justified before they believe.
To further understand all this, it is also important to distinguish between the immanent and transients acts of God. While election is solely an immanent act, justification is something that is both immanent and transient, meaning that it is something that took place both from eternity in the mind of God and something that took place in time in God's creation. According to verses like Ephesians 1:3-4, Revelation 13:8, and 1 Peter 1:18-21 we can deduce that God beheld the elect as justified before the creation of the world. In this regard, God made a decree that justified the elect, for God's decrees are accomplished even before they are fulfilled, or as Robert Young said in the Preface of his literal translation of the Bible, "The Hebrew writers often express the certainty of a thing taking place by putting it in the past tense, though the actual fulfilment may not take place for ages. This is easily understood and appreciated when the language is used by God, as when He says, in Gen. xv. 18, "Unto thy seed I have given this land;" and in xvii. 4, "I, lo, My covenant is with thee, and thou hast become a father of a multitude of nations" (available here). This means that when God beheld the elect as justified through His immanent act, they were justified. At the same time, the immanent act presupposed a transient act; otherwise, Christ would not have needed to come into the world to save them. Although both Christ and the elect were beheld by God in their respective blessed states from eternity, both Christ and the elect had to fulfill their respective roles in time, which required the fall, sin, enmity, the incarnation, and justification at the cross, as well as the benefits of justification, namely justification by faith, Spirit baptism, eternal life, sanctification, and glorification. Justification of the elect was fulfilled at the cross, certified by the resurrection, declared to the elect individually when they believe, and manifested in their lives by its benefits.
As the elect fulfilled their respective role in time, as mentioned above, they became the "beloved enemies" to whom God was able to fulfill His command to "love His enemies." It says in Matthew 5:44, "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you," from which we can see that this enmity is primarily on the side of the one doing the persecuting, not the one being persecuted. God's love for His elect is magnified in that He shows them that He loved them so much as to suffer and die for them even when they were enemies and regarded as enemies. And as Colossians 2:11-14 says, this great love was accomplished at the cross decades before these people came to believe it. Also, notice how the Apostle Paul is careful to say that the elect were "with Christ" at the cross (Col. 2:20, Rom. 6:6, etc.), rather than the merits of Christ's work subsequently being applied to the elect to effectuate justification. For more information, please see my article Justification and the Historia Salutis (History of Redemption).
A16: Yes, Romans 8:30 might be referring to justification by faith, but this verse needs to be read in the context of 8:29, "For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren;" Conforming the elect to the image of the Son of God requires calling the elect and causing them to know, by faith, what the Son of God accomplished as the first-born among many brothers. But as mentioned above in Q&A #4, faith represents its object, so when God justifies them by faith (i.e., declares them to be righteous), they are not appropriating anything, but are simply beholding the righteousness of God accomplished in the blood of Christ. Without calling and justifying the elect in the world, God could not start the process to conform them to His Son, which involves sanctification and glorification. So, when viewed in context of verse 29, we see that Romans 8:30 is dealing with God's interaction with the elect in the world, not His accomplishment for the elect immanently from eternity and transiently at the cross. This is God's normal way of dealing with the elect in the world, and it is only in exceptional cases (if any exist), such as elect children who die in infancy and the incapacitated, that the elect are not called and justified in the world, yet because of Christ's all-sufficient work, they are still glorified when they are resurrected.
Having said the above, however, despite the immediate context of verse 29, it is not all together clear that Romans 8:30 (and for that matter, much of the rest of the chapter) is primarily referring to God's transient acts in the lives of the elect. In particular, in Romans 8:30, all the verbs are in the Greek aorist tense, which is primarily a past tense (although it can be used proleptically, as is often assumed, rightly or wrongly, in this case). This is why the verse says, "Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified" (italics added). Predestination is an immanent act, so it is possible that calling, justifying, and glorifying are also immanent acts, all of which were in the mind of God before He created the world, similar to how Christ existed as the Lamb of God slain from the foundation of the world. That "calling" can be used this way is clear from God's calling of Abraham's seed described in Romans 4:17 and His sanctifying and appointing Jeremiah as a prophet before he was born in Jeremiah 1:5. It is also important to notice that the verbs in Romans 8:30 all have plural direct objects. This "calling" might be referring to a collective call of the elect, just like in Romans 11:29. In the immediately following verses of Romans 8:31-34, we see that Paul goes on to speak about justification, but it is not justification by faith; rather, it is justification accomplished at the cross. In light of this, the calling of verse 30 might very well be a supralapsarian calling in the mind of God. As for the rest of the chapter, Paul does go on to describe the elects' experience in the world, but he ends the chapter by describing God's love to the elect in terms of a love that transcends time, reminding us of God's everlasting love in Jeremiah 31:3.
Q17: What do you think about Louis Berkhof's interpretation of Romans 8:29-30, Romans 4:25, and 2 Corinthians 5:19 (available here) and its relation to the timing of justification?↑
A17: As for my opinion on Romans 8:29-30, see Q&A #16 above. As for Romans 4:25, see my article Romans 4:25 as Proof Justification Was Accomplished at the Cross. As for 2 Corinthians 5:19, I agree with Louis Berkhof's understanding of the underlying Greek, but his conclusions do not follow. He says, "From this passage the inference is drawn that the objective reconciliation of the world in Christ involves the non-imputation of sin to the sinner. But this interpretation is not correct." He would have done better to say, "But this interpretation may not be correct" because his understanding of the Greek and the present participles doesn't rule it out. Personally, I think a careful comparison with verses 18 and 20 favors the interpretation being correct because the only reason sins are not currently being imputed to individual members of the elect is because they were objectively dealt with at the cross. The imputation of the elects' sin to Christ in verse 21 implies the non-imputation of the elects' sin to the elect. And this all happened at the cross. To the extent that the elect are born into the world with a sinful nature, they will always enjoy the benefits of not having their sins imputed to them.
A18: Yes, I disagree with it. Again, please see my answer to Q&A #4, #5, and #6 above. The word faith is sometimes used with the Greek preposition dia, which can indicate instrumentality, but even if we want to call faith an instrument, it is no more of an instrument than a pair of glasses are to a person with poor eyesight. By faith, we behold the all-sufficient work that Christ accomplished at the cross. However, to say that faith is an appropriating instrument is a complete distortion of the meaning of faith, both biblically and secularly. It all comes down to this: either we believe that Christ's work on the cross is the all-sufficient act of justification, or we believe that Christ's work on the cross needs to be supplemented by the sinner's appropriating act (as a cause or means of justification). Although nearly all of Christianity believe the latter, my contention is that the former is true, based on the natural biblical and secular meaning of the words "faith" and "justification" and the plain biblical statements that teach that Christ accomplished justification at the cross . I recommend reading my articles What is the Gospel and the Nature of Faith? and Problems with the Heidelberg Catechism's Description of Faith.
Q19: But aren't there many metaphors used in the Bible that speak of appropriating life?↑
A19: This is an area where we have to be careful. For starters, life is not the same as justification. Life is a benefit of justification that the elect come to have and enjoy. As I described above, justification was accomplished at the cross. Justification procured benefits for the elect, among which are faith and eternal life. When the elect believe the Gospel, they come to recognize, experience, and enjoy the justification accomplished on the cross. This is justification by faith, and this is why the Apostle Paul described belief in the Gospel as revealing the righteousness of God. Those who are justified by faith come to have and enjoy eternal life. But justification by faith and the inception of eternal life are distinct, and justification by faith precedes the inception of eternal life, logically and probably chronologically (just like the death of Christ preceded the resurrection of Christ).
As for metaphors that are used in relation to having life, a good sample of these metaphors are found in the Gospel of John. These metaphors include "receiving," "coming," "seeing," "eating," and "drinking." However, it is vitally important to remember that metaphors simply represent one thing as another. In the case of the metaphors in the Gospel of John, in every instance, the thing that the metaphor represents is belief. For example, "receiving Him" is equated with "believing on His name" in John 1:12. "Looking upon the bronze serpent" (implied) is equated with "believing in the Son" in John 3:14-15. Coming to the light" is equated with "believing in the Son of God" in John 3:18-20. "Coming to me" and "receiving me" are equated with "believing" in John 5:38, 47. Also, "eating," "drinking," and "seeing" are equated with "believing" in John 6, and "following" is equated with "believing" in John 10.
As far as appropriation is concerned, I think that once the metaphors are correctly understood, it is easy to see that there is no appropriation involved. The metaphors represent belief in salvific propositions, namely the propositions advanced by Jesus. Even in the case of the woman at the well, it is not necessary to interpret asking God and receiving living water as an appropriating act. There are many instances in life where asking and receiving, especially when the parties involved are not equals, do not involve appropriation. Again, the story of the woman at the well is rich with figurative language. The woman's coming to the well at odd hours, her thirst, and her asking Jesus for water allegorically represent effectual calling. Her receiving living water is a metaphor for believing in Jesus as the Christ. This is clear from the fact that it was only after Jesus revealed Himself to her as the Christ that she left her water pot (which, figuratively, meant that she drank the water and was no longer thirsty) and returned to her city professing her belief that Jesus was the Christ.
Q20: If only the elect are saved, then why are all people commanded to believe?↑
A20: The command to believe is God's way of calling the elect. It is also the method through which God justifies the elect (as described above) and condemns the world. This is why the Apostle Paul said, "For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish: To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things?" (2 Cor. 2:15-16). People who don't believe "judge [themselves] unworthy of everlasting life" (Acts 13:46). This is why Jesus often spoke to people about believing, but then said that they were unable to believe. For example, in John 8:45-47 "And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me? He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God." Notice how he asks them why they don't believe, but then answers the question for himself by saying it is because they are not of God. Again, in John 10:26, "But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you." As another example, Jesus commanded people to believe in John 12:36, but then the Apostle John explains that they couldn't believe in order to fulfill Isaiah's prophecy in John 12:37-40. Even in Isaiah 55:1, we are told that people are commanded to come to the waters without money, but then are immediately told in verse 2 that these same people have preferred to spend their money for that which does not satisfy. So, what we see is that many people are called, but ultimately nobody responds except for the chosen (i.e., elect). And the only reason the elect respond is because they were predestined beforehand to enjoy the glory of Christ (2 Thessalonians 2:13-14).
Q21: Isn't Jesus the Savior of the world who took away the sin of the world?↑
A21: Yes, He is. The Apostle Peter taught, "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved" (Acts 4:12). If anyone in the whole world is going to be saved, it must be by Jesus Christ. It is also in this sense that He took away the sin of the world, being a propitiation not only for those who believe among ethnic Israelites, but for anybody in the whole world (1 John 2:2). God "opening the door of faith to the Gentiles" (Acts 14:27) was a big deal in the days of the Apostles (and still is today). It is also because of this that all people everywhere are commanded to repent (Acts 17:30) and are held accountable for not obeying the Gospel (2 Thessalonians 1:8).
Q22: Is assurance really of the essence of faith?↑
A22: It depends on what you mean by assurance. If assurance refers to being assured that the propositions of the Gospel are true, then yes, assurance is of the essence of faith. However, if by assurance, you mean the reception of the benefits of the Gospel, then no, those things are not of the the essence of faith. Faith is not an appropriating instrument, but is merely the doxastic attitude of being persuaded by the evidence for a proposition. The Gospel must be believed before the benefits of the Gospel can be enjoyed.
Q23: Are you sure that faith always refers to being persuaded by the evidence for a proposition?↑
A23: No, faith doesn't always refer to being persuaded by the evidence for a proposition, but this is its primary meaning and the meaning from which we must understand the figurative uses of the word. As for figures of speech, one example would be metonymy, where one noun is used in place of another. Since faith represents its propositional object, it is only natural that we should find examples of its use in metonymy. For example, Johannes Wollebius (1589-1629), in his Compendium Theologiae Christianae, said, "The expression 'We are justified by faith' is a metonymy, and has the same meaning as 'We are justified by the merit of Christ, which is apprehended by faith.'" (see p. 258 here). E.W. Bullinger in his Figures of Speech Used in the Bible gives several examples of faith being used metonymically, such as in Acts 17:31 and Galatians 3:23, as well as many others (see p. 599 here). As some more examples where faith is used as a metonymy for Christ, please consider: (1) "We live by faith:" Gal. 2:20; "by Christ," John 6:57. (2) "We have remission of sins by faith," Acts 13:38, 39; "by Christ," Eph. 1:7, Col. 1:14. (3) "We are justified by faith," Rom. 3:28, Gal. 3:24; "by Christ," Isa. 53:11, Rom. 5:9. (4) "We have peace with God by faith," Rom. 5:1,2; "by Christ," Eph. 2:3 and 3:12. (5) "We are sanctified by faith," Acts 15:9; "by Christ," Heb. 10:14, 1 Cor. 1:30. (6) "We overcome the world by faith," 1 John 5:4,5; "by Christ," John 16:33. (7) "We are the sons of God by faith," Gal. 3:26; "by Christ," Eph. 1:5. (8) We "have a heavenly inheritance by faith," Acts 26:18; "by Christ," Gal. 4:7. And (9) "We have eternal life by faith," John 3:16 and 5:24 and 6:47; "by Christ," 1 John 5:11,12. (Credit goes to the person with the screen name "eternomade" on the CARM Forum for compiling this list. See here). As explained in Hebrews 11:1, faith is the substance or assurance of things hoped for (or expected) and the conviction of things not seen. Christ accomplished justification and He reveals it to His elect by faith, by which they apprehend what Christ did and have fellowship with the substance of it. Therefore, when one of the elect says that he is justified by faith, what he really means is that He is justified by what Christ accomplished, as was pointed out by Wollebius above. This is why faith can be no more than being persuaded that its propositional object is true. Denying this inevitably adds an ethical element to justification that requires Christ's work in sinners to supplement Christ's work for sinners. In other words, it is a denial of the sufficiency of Christ's work on the cross. Theologians reveal that they don't understand the nature of faith or the Gospel when they say that faith is an appropriating instrument that accepts, receives, or procures what they suppose to be Christ's merits (which from their point of view does not include justification, for they don't believe Christ justified anyone on the cross) or that faith is not merely mental assent but also includes a mystical and elusive "heart work" they call fiducia (see my article here). In contrast, a correct understanding of faith necessitates that Christ's merits belong to the elect even before they believe, and it is by believing that they come to know it.
In addition to being a metonymy for Christ, it can also be used similarly for other propositional objects (because, again, what faith is about is exactly what its propositional object is about). When we say something like "He believes the Christian faith," what we mean is that he believes the collection of propositions advanced by Christianity. Faith can also be used as a synecdoche. If we say something like "Keep the faith," faith represents the doctrines and behavior expected of people who have believed. The semantic domain of faith can also include words with related meanings, such as "proof" (Acts 17:31) or "trustworthiness" (Romans 3:3, and possibly in the sense of "faithfulness" in Colossians 2:12 in allusion to Psalm 88:11, but also see Ephesians 1:19-20), to refer to something for which the propositions represented by it are worthy of being believed and accepted as true.
Q24: So, what about Bible verses that speak of "faith working by love" and "the work of faith"?↑
A24: I have an article where I discuss the concept of "faith working by love," but in short, the Apostle Paul was simply encouraging believers to love each other, not teaching that "faith produces love." But to be technical, faith is able to work when it is empowered by works. This is the principle that was taught by both the Paul and James. I suggest reading my articles Good Works are NOT Evidence of Faith, New Perspective on James, and The Relationship between Faith and Works in Key Passages. As for the expression "work of faith" in 1 Thessalonians 1:3, I believe Paul is using the word faith figuratively to refer to the behavior expected of people who have believed the collection of propositions known as the "Christian faith." However, even if Paul is using the word faith according to its primary meaning (i.e., the doxastic attitude of being persuaded by the evidence for a thing), there is no contradiction, for faith serves as a variable in creating the conditions necessary to perform works. Faith by itself can't produce works or influence behavior (James 2:17), but is often present where the influence of other variables, such as desire, create motivation to perform works. Since the variable of faith is one of the variables needed to create the conditions for performing works, it is reasonable to speak of the "work of faith." I definitely recommend reading the three articles listed above, but in addition to them, I also suggest my article Causation, Correlation, and Lies of Religion
Q25: What about when the Apostle Paul spoke of "obedience of faith" and "obeying the Gospel"?↑
A25: In a narrow sense, faith is being persuaded by the evidence for a proposition; and the Gospel is the proclamation of good tidings concerning the Son of God and what He accomplished. However, since the Gospel and faith in the Gospel are the cornerstones of Christianity, it is only natural that they can sometimes be understood in a broader, synecdochical manner to represent the doctrines of Christianity and the manner of life expected of Christians. Therefore, when read of the "obedience of faith" in Romans 1:5, it may be speaking of faith as obedience if we interpret the word faith in its narrow sense, or it could be speaking of faith in a broader sense to represent the doctrine and manner of life of Christians. Similarly, "obeying the Gospel" in Romans 10:16 seems to be referring to the narrow sense (i.e., believing the propositions of the Gospel) and "obedience to the Gospel" in 2 Thessalonians 1:8 may be taken in either a narrow or broad sense, but in 2 Corinthian 9:13 the context reveals that it should be taken in a broad sense. It is important to note, however, that these two words must be understood properly in their narrow sense before we can make any sense of their broader sense. Regrettably, many people interpret these words in their broader sense with respect to justification, not realizing, or simply refusing to realize, that their narrow sense is the only acceptable foundation for eternal life and all good things.
Now, as for how "obedience of faith" and "obeying the Gospel" can be understood in a narrow sense, it must again be emphasized that faith is not a work, but merely being persuaded that the propositions of the Gospel are true (as described in 1 John 5:9-11 and other places). In this way, faith is obedience in the sense that it overcame the temptation to find righteousness elsewhere. As for Christianity in particular, there are many temptations to turn faith into something that moves the focus from what Christ did for sinners to what the sinner supposedly did to receive Christ, such as defining faith to include fiducia, as explained above in Q&A #6. When these temptations are overcome by recognizing what Christ accomplished, then faith, although not a work, can still be called obedience. Likewise, the Gospel is the proclamation about what God accomplished in Christ, and obeying the Gospel means believing it (2 Thess. 1:8-10). Similar to the obedience of faith, obeying the Gospel also means overcoming the temptation to turn the proclamation about Christ into a "call to action" for the sinner. In some ways, faith and the Gospel can be likened to the Sabbath, where obedience to the Sabbath meant not working.
Q26: Why have I never heard faith described this way before?↑
A26: I'm pretty sure that not only have you heard faith described like this before in every realm of life outside of religion, but you also instinctively know that to believe something means to be persuaded or convinced that it is true. It is only in the realm of religion that theologians have obscured and distorted the meaning of faith. If the Jewish religious leaders were capable of so distorting their religion, we shouldn't be surprised at what Christian religious leaders are capable of doing. See my article Problems with the Heidelberg Catechism's Description of Faith and Good Works are NOT Evidence of Faith.