Gospel Guidebook: Getting and Keeping It Right 
한국어 日本語
Q&A on Faith
by Robert P. TerryUpdated March 17, 2025
This Q&A is a work in progress and subject to revision. It currently has 22 questions and answers.
Q1: What does it mean to believe the Gospel?↑
A1: 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. By salvific proposition, I mean the content of a declarative statement, which if believed, leads to the enjoyment of salvation. One example of a salvific proposition would be "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?'" (John 11:25-26). If you believe this proposition, then you are saved. It really is this simple. For more information, see my article What is the Gospel and the Nature of Saving Faith? Please understand that my description of the Gospel in that article does not constitute all the salvific propositions that exist or are deducible in the New Testament, and it may include some propositions that are not salvific.
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?" Jesus was referring to the assertion He had just made, namely that "He is the resurrection and the life." By saying this, He was identifying Himself with "the Christ, the Son of God, even He who comes into the world," as professed by Martha in her reply to Him in the very next verse (John 11:27). 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 Belief or Trust?
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 be 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 by being persuaded of it through belief, this same justification is manifested to the elect, and they thereafter 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 those who believe are 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 Christ accomplished a justifying act on the cross. In other words, belief is the persuasion of the mind that Christ performed a work that culminated 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 completely accomplished for the elect at the cross, and it was certified by the resurrection (Romans 4:25 NASB). 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 apply 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, manifests itself to the world, 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 appropriating instrument 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 a ground of justification or best means of obtaining justification) that justification can be by faith apart from works. 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 "to believe" and often used in the same context and explained by the verb "to believe"), we must not think that there is anything virtuous or mystical about faith itself, but 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 is only completed 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 "saving faith" as "true faith," "hearty trust," "upright faith," "lively faith," or "accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ" (which, according to the Westminster Confession of Faith, are only the "principal" acts of saving faith). By modifying their appropriating act with modifiers like "true," "hearty," "upright," and "lively," 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. Although it is rare, some theologians may correctly describe faith, but then paradoxically refer to it as an appropriating act, thereby revealing that although they describe faith correctly, they don't actually understand the meaning of it or the implications of it.
A7: The concept of the elect being justified before they believe is a biblical doctrine, 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 doctrine. 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 YLT, 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.
A8: 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.
Q9: Are you saying that belief is not necessary to be justified?↑
A9: 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.
Q10: Does this mean that there are some elect who never become believers?↑
A10: 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.
Q11: But didn't John the Baptist believe from his mother's womb?↑
A11: 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 because (1) there is no biblical or secular evidence that infants can believe propositions, which requires understanding and assenting to the content of declarative statements. (2) It distorts the meaning of the word faith both biblically and secularly and transforms it into an appropriating instrument that only bears the name faith. (3) It introduces an ethical element to justification because it requires the Holy Spirit's work in sinners to supplement Christ's work for sinners. As for being filled with the Holy Spirit, it is characteristic of justified people, but it is not a cause or evidence of justification. Consider how Balaam, King Saul, and Caiaphas were moved by the Holy Spirit to say and do things that were not of themselves.
A12: No, I am not. 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 naturally 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 persuasion of the mind that the salvific proposition of the Gospel is true, not a cause or appropriating instrument 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 an all-sufficient work of justification for His people on the cross.
A13: I will give you my current opinion based on what I think makes the most sense of the biblical data. In order to answer a question like this, it is 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. In other words, 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.
Based on the above, Ephesians 2:3 should not be isolated from Ephesians 2:4-5 where 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., dead in trespasses and sin and no different from other natural sons of Adam) and who the elect were in their persons (i.e., 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. This is consistent with them fulfilling their respective role in time, as mentioned above. And it is by having "beloved enemies" that God is able to fulfill His commandment 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 (which is kind of a parallel text with Ephesians 2:1-6) goes on to say, this great love was accomplished at the cross long before the Ephesians came to believe it. Also, notice how the Apostle Paul is careful to say that the elect were "with Christ" at the cross, rather than Christ's work subsequently being applied to the elect to finish the work of justification through some appropriating act. For more information, please see my article Justification and the Historia Salutis (History of Redemption).
A14: 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 for them as their eldest Brother and as God's first-born Son. 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 what was already accomplished for them. 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 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 of an immanent act 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. "Calling" can also be used of a transient act for the elect collectively, such as how it is used in Romans 11:29. There is nothing about the word "calling" in Romans 8:30 that requires it to be applied to the lives of the elect individually. Moving on to justification, immediately after saying "whom he called, them he also justified," Paul goes on to speak about justification, but it is not justification by faith; rather, it is justification accomplished at the cross (see verses 31-34). He then goes 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.
Q15: Although not specifically about faith, 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?↑
A15: As for my opinion on Romans 8:29-30, see Q&A #14 above. As for Romans 4:25, see my article Justification Precedes Regeneration. 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 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 the elect is because they were objectively dealt with at the cross. The imputation of the elects' sin to Christ in verse 20 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.
A16: 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 feel compelled to call faith an instrument, it is no more of an instrument than a pair of glasses are to a person who is short-sighted. By faith, we behold the all-sufficient work that Christ accomplished at the cross, meaning that we assent to the truth of it. 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 all-sufficient or we believe that Christ's work on the cross needs to be supplemented by the sinners appropriating act. 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 Saving Faith? and Problems with the Heidelberg Catechism's Description of Faith.
Q17: But aren't there many metaphors used in the Bible that speak of appropriating life?↑
A17: 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 believers 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 for them 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. He also said that it was the power of God unto salvation, and it is in the realm of this salvation that the elect come to have and enjoy eternal life. Justification by faith and commencement of eternal life occur approximately at the same time, but they are distinct, and justification by faith precedes eternal life, both logically and chronologically.
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, asking God for the gift of living water is not an appropriating act, for as Jesus basically explained to her, receiving living water meant believing that He was the Christ. The living water represented Jesus as the Christ, and it was only after she believed that she left her water pot (symbolically meaning that she received the water and was no longer thirsty) and returned to her city.
Q18: If only the elect are saved, then why are all people commanded to believe?↑
A18: 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 one more example, Jesus commanded people to believe in John 10:36, but then the Apostle John explains that they couldn't believe in order to fulfill Isaiah's prophecy in John 37-40.
Q19: Is assurance really of the essence of faith?↑
A19: It depends on what you mean by assurance. If assurance refers to being assured that the content of some proposition believed is true, then yes, assurance is of the essence of faith. However, if by assurance, you mean the peace of mind and other benefits that are enjoyed by people who believe the Gospel, then no, those things are not of the the essence of faith. The enjoyments of believing the Gospel obviously come after believing the Gospel.
A20: The word faith means belief. And belief is just the faculty of the mind that assents to propositions. This is all faith is, strictly speaking, and this is by far its most common usage in every realm of life. However, the semantic domain of the word faith also includes figurative usage. For example, because faith represents its propositional object (i.e, what faith is about is exactly what its propositional object is about), the word faith is sometimes used to represent a proposition or collection of propositions believed. When we say something like "He believes the Christian faith," what we mean is that he believes the collection of propositions advanced by Christianity. As another example, if we say something like "Keep the faith," faith represents the behavior expected of people who have believed a certain proposition or collection of propositions. As another example, when the Apostle Paul said, "But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed" (Galatians 3:23), he was probably using the figure of speech called "metonymy," where the word faith was being used in place of its propositional object, namely Jesus Christ. The word faith can also mean "proof" (Acts 17:31) or "trustworthiness" (Romans 3:3) to refer to something for which the propositions represented by it are worthy of being accepted as true.
Q21: So, what about Bible verses that speak of "faith working by love" and "the work of faith"?↑
A21: I have an article where I discuss the concept of "faith working by love," but in short, faith is able to work when it is empowered by works. This is the principle that was taught by both the Apostle Paul and James. I suggest reading my articles Works are NOT Evidence of Saving 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 the Apostle 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 the Apostle Paul is using the word faith literally to refer to the faculty of the mind that assents to propositions, there is no contradiction, for faith is capable of influencing behavior just like money is able to influence behavior. But please recognize that there is no inherent causal relationship between faith and behavior, just like there is no inherent causal relationship between money and behavior. Both faith and money are incapable of doing anything on their own, but when coupled with certain incentives, they are capable of working together with certain behaviors. 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
Q22: Why have I never heard faith described this way before?↑
A22: 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 Works are NOT Evidence of Saving Faith.