Do we choose our beliefs?

Theology
1

Hi everyone,

I’m working on a project exploring the nature of belief, and I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Do you think belief is something we freely choose, like an act of will? Or is it something that happens outside our control, shaped by evidence, upbringing, or even divine intervention?

I’ve come across verses that seem to point in both directions. For example:

• “Faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.” (Romans 10:17) – which might suggest belief follows exposure to the message.
• “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.” (John 6:44) – which seems to imply that belief depends on God’s initiative.
• “Choose this day whom you will serve…” (Joshua 24:15) – a famous appeal to personal choice.

How do you understand the nature of belief? Can someone simply choose to believe something they aren’t convinced is true? Or is belief something that comes to us, unbidden?

I’d really value a range of perspectives, especially from people of faith who’ve wrestled with this themselves.
Thanks!

2

Hi @Blindwatchmaker

Is belief something we freely choose, like an act of will?
Let’s start here. The idea that belief is purely an act of human will collapses under the weight of Scripture. While man is certainly called to believe (e.g., Isa_45:22, Mar_1:15, Act_16:31), Scripture repeatedly affirms that true belief is a supernatural work initiated by God.

John 1:12–13
“But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.”
→ Greek: ἐκ θεοῦ ἐγεννήθησαν = “were begotten of God” (aorist passive indicative, divine action, not human decision).

Philippians 1:29
“For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake…”
→ Greek: ἐχαρίσθη (aorist passive indicative of χαρίζομαι = “to graciously grant”)
→ Faith is a gift, not a self-willed act.

2 Thessalonians 3:2
“…for not all have faith.”
→ If belief were merely volitional, all could believe..but Paul makes clear: faith is not universal, nor is it autonomously generated.

So while humans are responsible to believe, we cannot manufacture saving faith by willpower alone. It must be granted, wrought, drawn, and opened (Act_16:14; John_6:44).

:high_voltage:2. Is belief something that happens outside our control, shaped by upbringing, evidence, or divine intervention?
This is closer to the truth–especially in light of divine initiative–but it needs refinement.

Yes, belief is shaped by divine action. But neither upbringing nor evidence alone produces saving faith. You can grow up in church, be immersed in evidence, and still perish in unbelief (John_5:39–40, Heb_4:2, Joh_12:37–40).

John 6:44
“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.”
→ Greek: ἑλκύσῃ (aorist active subjunctive of ἕλκω, “to drag, to draw with force”)
→ This verb is used in John 21:11 for dragging a net full of fish. It’s not polite suggestion—it’s effectual drawing.

John 6:65
“This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
→ Greek: δεδομένον (perfect passive participle of δίδωμι = “to give, grant”)
→ The grammar implies a once-for-all divine bestowal–not mere possibility.

So no, upbringing and evidence cannot make one believe unless God illumines the heart.

Acts 16:14
“The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul.”
→ Greek: διήνοιξεν (aorist active indicative of διανοίγω = “to open thoroughly”)
→ Only the Lord can spiritually open the heart to receive truth.

:high_voltage:3. Romans 10:17 – Faith comes by hearing…
This verse rightly highlights the instrumental cause of faith: the Word of Christ. But it doesn’t say the Word alone guarantees belief.

Romans 10:17
“So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.”
→ Greek: ἡ πίστις ἐξ ἀκοῆς = “faith comes out of hearing”
→ This shows the ordinary means, not the ultimate cause.
→ The Word is the channel—but God must effectually apply it.

Compare with:

1 Corinthians 2:14
“The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him…”
→ Greek: ψυχικὸς = “soulish” man; unregenerate
→ Greek: οὐ δύναται γνῶναι = “is not able to know them” (present middle indicative of δύναμαι = does not have the ability)
→ Mere hearing isn’t enough; spiritual discernment is required, and this is God-given.

  1. John 6:44 – No one can come unless drawn by the Father
    This is not poetic language. It is categorical, absolute, and unqualified. The Greek οὐδεὶς δύναται ἐλθεῖν = “No one has the power to come” makes it clear: apart from divine drawing, belief is impossible.

Compare:

John 3:27
“A person cannot receive even one thing unless it is given him from heaven.”
→ Same construction: οὐ δύναται + λαβεῖν = not able to receive.

1 Corinthians 1:18
“The word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing…”
→ To the perishing, the gospel isn’t convincing; it’s absurd.
→ So belief is not the result of persuasion, but regeneration (John_3:3–8).

  1. Joshua 24:15 – “Choose this day whom you will serve…”
    This verse is often misunderstood. Joshua is speaking to a covenant community–already externally bound to YHWH. It’s a call to covenantal fidelity, not initial salvation. And even here, the ability to obey is contested in verse 19:

Joshua 24:19
“You are not able to serve the LORD, for He is a holy God…”
→ Hebrew: לֹֽא־תוּכְלוּ֙ = “you will not be able” (imperfect qal of יָכַל, to be able)

Joshua affirms: You can’t serve Him rightly unless God works in you.

So even where human responsibility is emphasized, the inability of man remains crystal clear.

  1. Can someone choose to believe what they aren’t convinced is true?
    No. Belief is not a mere act of will, but a response of the heart when conviction has taken place.

Romans 10:10
“For with the heart one believes and is justified…”
→ Greek: καρδίᾳ πιστεύεται = belief springs from the heart
→ The verb πιστεύω (present passive indicative) involves being persuaded…not merely choosing.

Hebrews 11:1
“Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.”
→ Greek: ἔλεγχος = “evidence, conviction”
→ Faith includes being convinced—not blind allegiance.

So no, one cannot choose to believe without being persuaded by the Spirit. That persuasion doesn’t come from man, but from divine work within (Joh_16:8–10).

Belief is a divine work, not a human leap
It is rational (never contrary to reason),
But it is also spiritual (always contrary to the flesh),
And ultimately, it is supernatural…granted, birthed, and sustained by God.

Ephesians 2:8
“For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God…”
→ Greek: τῇ γὰρ χάριτί… δῶρον τοῦ θεοῦ = faith and grace alike are gift, not grit.

Shalom.

Johann.

3

Ahhh, a “Blind Watchmaker” with whom to wax philosophical. Be gentle, this is my first conversation with someone claiming to be blind. Your forum handle already has my philosophy gene tingling.

I wonder what a blind watchmaker means when he uses the word “belief”; especially when he uses that word in a Christian forum. This specific curiosity emerges mostly because Christians use that term in two contrasting, yet symbiotic, ways, and only the context clues one into what is intended. We really should have two separate terms for these two ideas, but as it is they are something of a “homophonographinyms”; they sound alike, they are spelled alike, and they share some definition, but are very different. We are left with, what I call, a lower form of the word and a higher form of the word. I wonder to which you refer when you ask your question:

“Do you think belief is something we freely choose, like an act of will, or is it something that happens outside our control, shaped by evidence, upbringing, or even divine intervention?”

The lower form of the word can easily be addressed by this question, but the higher form refuses to submit to this inquiry, and needs a new question altogether. The higher form can only be asked: “from where do you originate?” without implying predetermined sources.

The lower form of “belief” is spoken in casual parlance meaning an idea firmly held to be true or accurate. “I believe my socks match today”, or “I believe my mother loves me” are an examples of this kind of belief. I believe (see what I did there) that the lower form of this word can find origins in both of the sources you mentioned; some things I believe without evidence, I choose to beleive them, and some I believe because of evidence, I’ve been convinced.

This lower form of belief is not the kind of thing you would expect to be debated in a Christian forum, so I think you must be asking about the higher form of belief, the form that often goes by the surname “faith”. The problem we encounter however, is that the higher form of “belief” will not submit to the limits of origin you supplied in your question; i.e. it does not recognize the restriction of being either one or the other, or even something else altogether. “Faith belief” finds its origins neither in our will, nor of our environment, but springs from another realm; a dimension in which we have no tangible experience, and this is where it gets a bit muddy. Muddy, I say, because faith apparently implants itself into both realms of our experience; it bellows like a home-born resident of my self-centered will, while at the same time boasting of having come upon me unaware, like a sneaky virus, and something inside of us knows neither voice is telling the full story. Faith is like manna (what is it?); it’s delicious, it’s odd, it is not provided to everyone, it fails to conform to convention, it cannot be replicated, it comes from who-knows-where, we have to pick it up, and it rejects being bottled. You say:

“I’ve come across verses that seem to point in both directions.”

and so you testify to the slippery nature of “Higher Belief”; you recognize an undeniable aspect of “Faith”.

“The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit." (John 3:8)

I surmise this wonder of the faith form of belief comes not from expected sources (the mind of man, or the environment in which he lives), but as an indivisible expression of the indwelling Spirit of Holy God. Our faith is how we experience His life. The breath of life infuses a resurrected soul with an innate understanding of it’s presence. Like a newborn baby senses the nearness of his nurturing mother, the above-born infant senses the indwelling of Holy-Life. This sense, this belief, this sure knowledge, this unshakable confidence, must be an artifact of Holy indwelling; this must be faith. “We hear the sound of it”, faith comes by hearing; we feel the presence, “like a mighty rushing wind”; we cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes”, God is Spirit; but we are never separated from it, “I will never leave you..”

These are my musings, I’d love to hear yours

Believing with you
KP

And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, "Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God. **Revelation 21:3 **

4

Thank you for two incredibly rich and thoughtful replies.
I will try to address them.

Johann, thank you for such a thorough and scripture-rich reply. If I’m understanding you correctly, your view is that belief — in the salvific sense used in passages like John 3:16–18, Mark 16:16, Revelation 21:8, and 2 Thessalonians 1:8–9 — is ultimately not something within human control, but rather a supernatural work initiated by God.

That would imply that if God grants someone faith, belief follows — and if He withholds it, belief is impossible. But I’m curious how you’d frame the nature of human response in all this.

Would you say God’s action is a sufficient cause — meaning that belief necessarily follows when He grants it? Or is it a necessary cause that still leaves room for human cooperation? And if it’s the latter, is that human response something the person chooses — or is it itself the product of divine persuasion or regeneration?

In other words, does any part of the belief process — whether initiating or responding — involve a voluntary decision on our part? Or is belief, in every meaningful sense, something that happens to us rather than something we generate?

Thanks again for your clarity and the way you’ve grounded your answer in scripture. It’s a really helpful perspective.

And Hi KPuff!
Thanks so much for your thoughtful and poetic reply — there’s a lot here that really invites reflection.

I appreciate your distinction between the “lower” and “higher” forms of belief. That seems to map quite well onto the difference people often note between propositional belief (assenting to something as true) and relational faith or trust. I agree that these are different — but also connected in important ways.

What I’m especially interested in is whether belief in the propositional sense — e.g. “God exists,” “Jesus rose from the dead” — is something we can choose to believe, or something we find ourselves believing (or not) based on how things strike us, given our background, evidence, temperament, and so on.

You suggest that faith, in its higher form, “springs from another realm” — that it’s not willed, not taught, not chosen. And yet it seems to me that this kind of faith still presupposes the lower form of belief. After all, you can’t really trust in something (or someone) unless you at least believe it exists. That makes me wonder whether the “higher” form is built on the “lower” one — and if the lower form isn’t chosen, then perhaps the foundation of faith isn’t either.

So my question remains: in your view, can a person will themselves to believe something they’re not convinced of? Or does belief require a kind of internal persuasion that lies outside the will?

Would love to keep the conversation going — thanks again for engaging so generously.

5

Hi @Blindwatchmaker

Faith as Divine Initiative: Not Self-Generated, Not Irresistibly Caused
Philippians 1:29 — “To you it has been granted [ἐχαρίσθη] for Christ’s sake… to believe in Him.”

ἐχαρίσθη (aorist passive indicative, χαρίζομαι): “was graciously given” — the passive voice points to divine agency; faith is a gift, not an autonomous self-act.

But note: the verb refers to what is given, not what is done to the person. Faith is not injected; it is enabled.

Ephesians 2:8 - “By grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God.”

τοῦτο… δῶρον (neuter demonstrative and noun) most naturally refers to the entire process of salvation through faith, not faith alone, but does include faith as part of the gracious act.

This points to a God-initiated faith, but not an imposed one. The grammar distinguishes between source and cause.

John 6:65 — “No one can come to Me unless it has been granted [δεδομένον] him from the Father.”

δεδομένον (perfect passive participle, δίδωμι): having been granted…again divine initiative is the presupposition for response.

But note: none of these texts state that God believing on behalf of the person. The faith is not coercively caused but enabled.

  1. Faith Is Responsive — Real, Personal, and Accountable
    While God initiates, Scripture never treats human belief as automatic or involuntary. We are repeatedly commanded to believe, and held responsible for rejecting the truth.

John 3:16–18 — “Whoever believes [ὁ πιστεύων] in Him is not condemned… but whoever does not believe [ὁ μὴ πιστεύων] is condemned already.”

Both present active participles (πιστεύων): the subject is grammatically personal and active, not passive.

The contrast between belief and unbelief makes sense only if the human response is real and not predetermined in outcome.

Acts 13:48 — “As many as were appointed to eternal life believed.”
This verse is often cited to support irresistible grace, but the participle τεταγμένοι (perfect passive) does not require a Calvinistic reading.

Early usage (cf. Josephus, Philo) can denote those who are disposed or aligned — not infallibly destined. The immediate context (v.46–49) emphasizes human response and rejection.

Acts 28:24 — “Some were persuaded [ἐπείθοντο]… others would not believe [ἠπίστουν].”

ἐπείθοντο (imperfect passive or middle of πείθω): persuasion implies influence, not compulsion.

ἠπίστουν (imperfect active, ἀπιστέω): active unbelief – an ongoing resistance.

These examples show that divine drawing is real, but not determinative in outcome. God illumines, persuades, and grants the opportunity — but man is responsible for the outcome.

  1. Is Belief a Sufficient Effect of God’s Work — or Just a Necessary One?
    You asked: Is divine action a sufficient cause, or merely a necessary cause of faith?

Let’s consider:

If God’s action were sufficient, then faith would always follow. But texts like Luke 8:12 and Acts 7:51 suggest otherwise.

Luke 8:12 — “The devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, so that they may not believe [πιστεύσαντες] and be saved.”
The participle πιστεύσαντες (aorist active) implies the capacity to believe was present — but not exercised.

Acts 7:51 — “You always resist [ἀντιπίπτετε] the Holy Spirit” — present active indicative: ongoing resistance, not inability.

This suggests that God’s action is necessary — no one can come without Him — but not sufficient in a deterministic sense. His light enables, but does not override.

  1. Paul’s Ordo: Faith Before Regeneration, Not After
    The common Reformed sequence (regeneration → faith → justification) is never stated in Paul.

Galatians 3:2 — “Did you receive the Spirit by works… or by hearing with faith [ἐξ ἀκοῆς πίστεως]?”

Romans 5:1 — “Having been justified by faith [δικαιωθέντες ἐκ πίστεως]…”

Ephesians 1:13 — “Having believed [πιστεύσαντες], you were sealed with the Spirit.”

All three show the order: faith → justification/sealing/regeneration, not the reverse. That is decisive.

  1. Early Church Witnesses: Not Calvinistic
    Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho §43:

“For not all who make confession, are truly pious; but those only who do the will of Him that sent us… For He foreknows who are to believe.”

Justin clearly affirms divine foreknowledge — not determinism — and human response.

Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4.37.1:

“God made man free from the beginning… and obedience is not forced upon him, but voluntary.”

Faith, for the early Fathers, was a free response to divine revelation…enabled, yes, but not imposed.

How Human Response Works
Element Divine Role Human Role
Illumination God shines light (2Co_4:6), opens hearts (Acts_16:14) We hear and consider (Rom_10:17)
Drawing God draws (John_6:44), persuades (Acts_18:4) Some are persuaded (Acts_28:24), some resist
Faith Granted (Phil_1:29), enabled (Eph_2:8), initiated by God Freely but responsibly exercised (John_3:16–18)
Justification Through faith (Rom_5:1) No boasting — faith is not meritorious (Rom_3:27)
Sanctification God works in us (Phil_2:13), Spirit sanctifies (2Th_2:13) We obey and yield (Rom_6:19–22, Gal_5:16)

Final Word
Belief is not a synergistic work that contributes to salvation — but neither is it a mechanical product of regeneration. It is a Spirit-enabled response to divine light, real and accountable, with eternal consequences.

“He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.” — John 3:36

Faith is not something we produce — nor something done to us.
It is what we do when God enables us to truly see.

J.

6

Thanks again, Johann — I really value the clarity, care, and balance in your response. You’ve done a great job outlining what I think is a very nuanced position: that faith is neither self-willed nor mechanically imposed, but a Spirit-enabled human response that remains personal and accountable.

If I’m understanding you correctly, then belief in the salvific sense is:

  1. Not possible apart from divine initiative (illumination, drawing, granting),
  2. Not guaranteed even when God acts (since people can resist or refuse), and
  3. Still treated in scripture as a personal act for which we are responsible.

You’ve drawn a helpful distinction between God making belief possible and God causing belief. That helps explain why people can encounter the same gospel and respond differently — one persuaded, one resistant — even under the same divine influence.

That leads me to a further question — and this is really the heart of what I’m exploring:

If belief is something we do when God enables us to “truly see,” then what kind of act is it? Is it more like choosing to raise my hand — a conscious, voluntary decision? Or is it more like finding myself convinced by an argument — something that happens within me, without direct control?

In other words, even if the possibility of belief is divinely granted, is the actual moment of belief something we can choose to trigger? Or does it still depend on whether, in that moment, the person finds the message compelling or convincing — which wouldn’t be under their conscious control?

I ask because I often hear people say things like “you have to choose to believe,” but I’m not sure belief (in the sense of being persuaded something is true) really works like that. I’d love to hear your take on whether you think belief, once enabled, is still chosen — or more accurately described as an involuntary response to perceived truth.

Thanks again for the careful discussion.

7

The reason I originally asked about belief is that once we recognize that actual belief — not just openness or willingness — cannot be summoned by sheer willpower, it casts the idea of salvation being contingent on belief in a very different light.

If belief only arises when we find ourselves genuinely convinced of something, and we cannot force that conviction into being, then it raises a serious question: can it be just for someone’s eternal destiny to hinge on something they were never able to choose?

That’s the deeper issue I’m exploring — not to be provocative, but because I think it matters enormously.

8

You’re not being provocative—you’re just circling a theological drain because you don’t like the implications of divine sovereignty. You say belief can’t be summoned by willpower? Amen to that. But then you act like that makes God unjust for demanding it? That’s not a problem with justice—that’s a problem with your anthropology.

Let’s clear the fog.

No one is neutral. No one is standing at the gates of heaven saying, “I would believe if I just had the power.” Scripture doesn’t describe man as sick and needing help—it says we’re dead in sin (Eph. 2:1), blind (2 Cor. 4:4), and hard-hearted (Ezek. 36:26). The reason people don’t believe isn’t because God asked for something impossible—it’s because they love their sin more than the Savior (John 3:19). That’s not intellectual inability. That’s moral rebellion.

And here’s where the fire falls: If belief truly depended on us, no one would be saved. Ever. Not one. That’s why salvation is by grace through faith—and even that faith is a gift (Eph. 2:8–9). You’re not saved because you finally figured it out. You’re saved because the Shepherd called, and the sheep heard His voice (John 10:27).

So yes, you’re right: we can’t force belief. But instead of accusing God, maybe bow to the mercy that He gives it at all.

The Judge owes you nothing but justice. The miracle is that He offers you mercy.

—Sincere Seeker. Scripturally savage. Here for the Truth.

9

@Blindwatchmaker
You say belief cannot be summoned by sheer willpower — agreed. But the implication that this renders judgment unjust misunderstands the nature of πιστεύω and the divine initiative in salvation history. Let’s walk through it in the firelight of Scripture.

  1. “Belief cannot be summoned by sheer willpower.”

Yes— and no one ever said it could. The New Testament never treats faith as a self-generated spark.

The verb πιστεύω (present active indicative, to believe, entrust, be convinced) never appears as a raw act of human self-determination.

Paul never says “summon faith,” but rather Romans 10:17 —
ἡ πίστις ἐξ ἀκοῆς, ἡ δὲ ἀκοὴ διὰ ῥήματος Χριστοῦ
(faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ).

It is the hearing that precedes the believing. You hear truth, truth reveals, and the soul bows.
It is truth-reception, not self-conviction.
And the hearing is not passive. It is the result of κηρύσσομαι (I am preached to — present passive), and that preaching is God’s appointed means.

  1. “Belief arises only when we’re genuinely convinced — we cannot force conviction.”

You’re still thinking like a modern secular philosopher. In Scripture, conviction is not rational persuasion. It is God’s unveiling.

Paul uses ἀποκαλύπτω (to reveal, disclose — Galatians 1:16) for how Christ was made known to him —
“Ὅτε δὲ ηὐδόκησεν ὁ Θεὸς… ἀποκαλύψαι τὸν Υἱὸν αὐτοῦ ἐν ἐμοί”
(When God was pleased to reveal His Son in me…).

This is not “Paul finally figured it out.”
This is divine disclosure.
The soul sees. And when it sees, it believes.

The Hebrew parallel is נָגַד (to declare or make known) — see Psalm 25:14,
“סוֹד יְהוָה לִירֵאָיו וּבְרִיתוֹ לְהוֹדִיעָם”
(The secret of the Lord is with those who fear Him, and He will make them know His covenant).

Knowledge here is not earned — it is given, granted, revealed.
Hence why Jesus says in John 6:65 —
“οὐδεὶς δύναται ἐλθεῖν πρός με ἐὰν μὴ ᾖ δεδομένον αὐτῷ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός”
(No one can come to Me unless it has been granted him by the Father).

δεδομένον — perfect passive participle of δίδωμι (to give) — it is a given thing, not a summoned one.

  1. “Can it be just for someone’s eternal destiny to hinge on something they could never choose?”

You’re confusing moral agency with autonomous initiation.
The gospel offers no Pelagian flattery.

Paul says in Philippians 1:29 —
“ὅτι ὑμῖν ἐχαρίσθη τὸ ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ… τοῦ πιστεύειν εἰς αὐτόν”
(It has been graciously given to you… to believe in Him).
The verb is ἐχαρίσθη — aorist passive of χαρίζομαι, meaning to be granted as a gift.

Belief is not your lever. It is your response to revealed glory.
And the revelation itself — the sight that breaks and bends the will — is sovereign.

Hebrew has a precise mirror:
יַדְעָה in Jeremiah 24:7 —
“וְנָתַתִּי לָהֶם לֵב לָדַעַת אֹתִי כִּי אֲנִי יְהוָה”
(And I will give them a heart to know Me, that I am the LORD).

I will give them a heart to know — not they will choose to learn Me.

  1. “That’s the deeper issue I’m exploring — not to be provocative…”

I know. But the deeper issue is this***: you are assuming δικαιοσύνη (justice) must mean equal opportunity.***

But Paul says δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ (the righteousness of God) is revealed ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν (Romans 1:17) —
from faith to faith, that is, it begins in faith and ends in faith, and nowhere does it flow from autonomous will.

To the objector Paul says plainly in Romans 9:20 —
“ὦ ἄνθρωπε, μενοῦνγε σὺ τίς εἶ ὁ ἀνταποκρινόμενος τῷ Θεῷ;”
(Who are you, O man, to answer back to God?).

The potter gives mercy, the pot receives mercy. And if one believes, it is because God ἐλέησεν (He had mercy — aorist active of ἐλεέω).

Final fire:

We truly respond, but the response is only possible because truth — ἀλήθεια — was unveiled,
—Greek— ἀποκαλυφθῇ (was revealed — aorist passive subjunctive of ἀποκαλύπτω),
and in that unveiling, the soul bent, bowed, broke — and believed.

That is not injustice. That is grace.

Johann.

10

Johann, thank you for this beautifully crafted response. Your depth of scriptural knowledge and your use of the original languages really enrich the discussion, and I’m grateful for the time and care you’ve taken.

I want to make sure I’m tracking with you. If I understand your position, it’s this:

  • Belief is not something we can generate on our own.
  • It arises when God chooses to reveal — to unveil — and in that moment of divine disclosure, the soul sees and responds.
  • That response is real, but not autonomous. It’s enabled by grace, not summoned by willpower.
  • Therefore, belief is not chosen in the ordinary sense. It is the product of God’s initiative and the unveiling of truth.

So far, I find myself largely in agreement — at least on the psychological and phenomenological side. I too believe we cannot simply choose belief at will. Belief happens when something becomes convincing to us, and we don’t have direct control over what our minds find convincing. The moment of belief isn’t manufactured; it’s discovered.

Where I’m still wrestling — and where I’d love your thoughts — is with the moral implication. If belief is always the result of divine unveiling (as you so powerfully described), then is it just to hold someone culpable for lacking that belief? Can we really be condemned for not responding to a light we were never shown?

I understand that Romans 9 anticipates this kind of question — “Who are you, O man, to answer back to God?” — but appealing to divine sovereignty doesn’t resolve the ethical tension; it just shifts it. If God grants belief to some and withholds it from others, then belief becomes a function of mercy, not merit. And unbelief becomes… what, exactly? A symptom of being passed over?

I’m not asking this to be defiant. I’m asking because if belief is not under our control, then the idea of eternal consequences hinging on belief raises what seems to me a serious moral problem. Not with sovereignty — but with justice.

Appreciate your engagement more than you know. This is exactly the kind of deep, careful conversation I was hoping to have when I started this thread.

11

Thanks Sincere. I will respond more fully to your reply as soon as I get a chance.

12

Hi @Blindwatchmaker

Hey – I really appreciate how carefully you’re thinking through this. You’re wrestling with something real and weighty — and that matters.

But I’d like to ask you plainly, just to understand more clearly: which system do you actually find most convincing at this point?

Because what you’ve laid out touches several theological frameworks — but they’re not all compatible.

For instance:

If you believe that belief arises only when God unveils the truth, and that unveiling is not given to all… then you’re close to Augustinianism or Calvinism, where faith is a gift given to some, not all (cf. Acts 13:48; John 6:65; Phil_1:29). But in that case, your concern about justice clashes with the framework you’re describing. So do you affirm that framework, but struggle emotionally with its implications?

If you believe that belief is a response to divine unveiling — but that God does reveal truth to all, and some resist it — then you’re leaning toward Arminianism or Prevenient Grace: God initiates, reveals, convicts everyone (John 1:9; Titus 2:11), but some suppress it (Rom_1:18–21). In that case, unbelief is culpable, because light was given and rejected. Is that the model you’re closer to?

Or do you think everyone would believe if they were truly shown the light — but that some simply never get that light? That sounds more like Open Theism or a form of conditional inclusivism — where God’s justice depends on whether a person could have believed, had they been shown more. But then: what do you do with Romans 1:20, or Acts 17:30?

So I’m asking directly, in love:
Which of these three are you closest to — Calvinist (monergist), Arminian (synergist), or something else entirely — and how does that shape your answer to the justice question?

Because it sounds like you’re affirming monergistic causality (God unveils, we believe), but still wanting synergistic justice (we must be given a fair chance to respond).

That tension — between God’s initiative and man’s moral accountability — is exactly where Romans 9–11 labors. But to resolve it, we have to know which mountain we’re standing on.

Which one are you standing on?

Johann.

13

Thanks for this Johann — I really appreciate the clarity of your question and the grace in how you’re asking it. You’re absolutely right that I’m not fully aligned with any of the classical systems you mention, and that the heart of what I’m wrestling with sits in the tension between how belief works and how judgment is rendered.

So let me try to be precise.

I hold the view — based on both personal experience and a lot of philosophical reflection — that belief is not chosen. We can’t will ourselves to believe something we’re not persuaded of. We can be open, we can seek, we can expose ourselves to influences — but at the end of the day, belief arises when we become convinced, and that process is outside our direct control.

That makes me a doxastic involuntarist.

From there, I look at salvation systems that make eternal reward or punishment hinge on belief, and I ask: If belief isn’t chosen, is it just to judge people for whether they believe?

That’s the core of my concern — and it’s not resolved by whether God reveals to some (Calvinism) or to all (Arminianism). In both systems, the person who fails to believe is ultimately condemned — and in both systems, belief is not truly under that person’s control. Either they didn’t receive enough light (Calvinism), or the light didn’t persuade them (Arminianism). But in neither case did they choose their unbelief.

So to answer your question: I’m not standing on any of the three mountains you describe. I’m standing in a different place entirely — looking at the question of justice not from within the system, but from beneath it, asking: does it make sense to hold people morally accountable for what they believe, if belief is not an act of will?

I know Romans 9–11 wrestles with divine sovereignty and human responsibility. But what I’m probing is not God’s right to rule — it’s the moral coherence of a judgment that condemns people for what they could not control.

That, to me, is the mountain we all need to face.

14

Thanks for your reply SincereSeeker. You’re articulating the classic Reformed view with clarity and conviction, and as with Johann, I respect the coherence of your position. But I think it reveals exactly the moral tension I’ve been trying to surface.

You agree that belief can’t be summoned at will — that humans, left to themselves, are dead in sin and incapable of believing unless God intervenes. That’s monergism: salvation as 100% God’s doing. And I understand the internal logic. But here’s the problem.

If belief is a gift, and God grants it to some and withholds it from others, then the ultimate reason people believe is not that they chose well — and the ultimate reason others don’t is not that they rejected the truth. It’s that they were never given the capacity to believe in the first place.

To then say they are justly condemned for that unbelief creates a moral contradiction. It’s not just that we can’t meet the standard. It’s that the standard is only met when God chooses to make it possible — and He doesn’t choose that for everyone. That’s not justice. That’s selective mercy with eternal punishment for all as the default.

And it gets harder. Because on this view, God not only withholds the gift of faith — He creates people knowing, from the outset, that they will never receive it. That they will live, die, and be condemned forever, all without the possibility of salvation. That’s not just sovereignty. That’s predestined damnation.

You say the Judge owes us nothing but justice. But justice — as even human legal systems understand — requires agency. To punish someone for a state of belief they had no power to alter, and no opportunity to escape, is not justice. It’s sovereignty untethered from moral coherence.

Yes, faith is a gift. But if eternal torment is the result of not receiving that gift, we’re no longer in the realm of justice or love. We’re in the realm of arbitrary power and capricious punishment.

If God’s goodness means anything, then His actions must be morally intelligible — at least in principle. And punishing someone for unbelief they were never able to change doesn’t pass that test.

15

Right @Blindwatchmaker

“Belief is not chosen… we can’t will ourselves to believe something we’re not persuaded of.”

You’re describing πιστεύειν not as a volitional act but as a passive result of persuasion. Let’s test that.

In John 3:12 Jesus says,
“If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe (οὐ πιστεύετε, pres. act. ind. 2nd pl.), how will you believe (πιστεύσετε, fut. act. ind. 2nd pl.) if I tell you heavenly things?”

Future active indicative — not passive, not middle, not coerced. This verb structure attributes the act of belief to you. You’re the grammatical subject.
Not, “belief arose in you.”

But: you will believe (or not). Christ frames it as your responsibility.

Luke 8:13 speaks of those who “believe for a while” — πιστεύουσιν πρός καιρόν — and then fall away. Belief is impermanent here, meaning it can be entered into and left. That defies doxastic determinism. Their belief was not irresistible, nor entirely involuntary.

And let’s not forget the ironic imperative in Mark 1:15:

“Repent and believe (πιστεύετε, pres. act. imp. 2nd pl.) in the gospel.”
Jesus commands belief. The imperative mood implies the will is addressed.

So, biblically — not philosophically — belief (πιστεύω) is a commanded response, not an unconscious emergence. The grammar won’t let us hide.

  1. “That makes me a doxastic involuntarist.”

Fair — but now you’re in epistemology, not Scripture. Let’s return to the λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ.

In Acts 16:31, Paul tells the jailer,
“Believe (πίστευσον, aor. act. imp. 2nd sg.) in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved.”
Aorist imperative: decisive, immediate, volitional.

The Spirit does the drawing — yes (John 6:44) — but the jailer is commanded to believe.

In Hebrew? Isaiah 53:1 —
“Who has believed our report?” — מִי הֶאֱמִין לִשְׁמֻעָתֵנוּ
Verb: הֶאֱמִין (hiphil, perfect, 3ms). Causative. Belief was induced or enabled — not spontaneous emergence. The hiphil stem in Hebrew implies that the one believing has been brought to belief — but still owns the act.

So, belief may be enabled… it may be drawn out… it may even be sudden.
But it’s never portrayed as morally or volitionally neutral.

  1. “If belief isn’t chosen, is it just to judge people for whether they believe?”

Now we hit the mountain. Let’s climb it with Romans 1:18–20.
“For the wrath of God is revealed… against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth…”
Verb: κατεχόντων (pres. act. ptcp. gen. pl. masc.) — actively suppressing.
Not lacking access. Not failing to be persuaded. Suppressing truth in unrighteousness.

Verse 20:
“They are without excuse” — ἀναπολόγητοι εἰσιν
This is courtroom language. Not “they were unpersuaded.” Not “they couldn’t see.”
But: they’re culpable for actively rejecting what was shown.

Hebrews 3:12 —
“Take care… lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart”
Greek: ἀπιστίας — noun form of unbelief. Treated not as a passive state but a moral one.

Scripture does not present unbelief as an unfortunate condition.
It presents it as moral treason — refusal to yield to what has been revealed.

  1. “In both systems, belief is not truly under that person’s control.”

But this is not what the text says.

2 Thessalonians 2:10 —
“They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.”
Verb: οὐκ ἐδέξαντο (aor. mid. ind. 3rd pl. of δέχομαι) — they did not receive.
Middle voice: the subject is involved in the action.
This is not “they couldn’t receive” or “belief didn’t arise.”
This is: they refused, they rejected, they said no.

Acts 7:51 —
“You always resist the Holy Spirit” — ἀντιπίπτετε τῷ Πνεύματι
Verb: ἀντιπίπτετε (pres. act. ind. 2nd pl.).
Ongoing, volitional resistance. Not inability. Not non-persuasion.
But hostile rejection.

  1. “I’m not on any of the mountains. I’m outside them, asking whether the whole judgment system is just.”

That’s honest — but Romans 9 speaks directly to that meta-level objection.

Romans 9:19–20 —
“You will say to me then, ‘Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?’ But who are you, O man, to answer back to God?”

Verb: ἀνταποκρίνῃ (fut. mid. ind. 2nd sg. of ἀνταποκρίνομαι)
To answer back — in a confrontational sense.
Paul anticipates your question. And the Spirit answers it not with metaphysics — but with creaturely humility. He asserts God’s right as Creator.

Now — you said this doesn’t resolve the moral tension.
But friend — it defines the moral boundary.
We are not more just than God.
We’re clay — not sovereign arbiters of fairness.

Final point: “Does it make sense to condemn people for what they could not control?”

No one is condemned for failing to believe what they never saw.

John 3:19 —
“And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light.”
Verb: ἠγάπησαν (aor. act. ind. 3rd pl. of ἀγαπάω) — they loved.
They preferred.
They were shown — and they chose darkness.

The moral ground of judgment is never lack of opportunity.
It is refusal of revealed glory.

So I say gently but firmly:
We truly respond, but the response is only possible because truth — ἀποκαλυφθῇ (Rom 1:17) — was unveiled.
And in that unveiling, the soul bent, bowed, broke — and believed (Rom_10:10, πιστεύεται εἰς δικαιοσύνην).

The invitation is still open.
“Today, if you hear His voice, do not harden your heart.” (Heb_3:15)

That’s not unjust. That’s mercy — real, offered, and rejected only by those who love their own night.

Hope this is helpful, since I love the Scriptures, not politics or the things of this world.

If you’re interested, I’d be glad to recommend a free Bible software you can download — it’s a valuable resource, especially since so many today are, unfortunately, unfamiliar with the Scriptures.

Just say the word brother.

Johann.

16

Ah, Blindwatchmaker—this is where the gloves come off and the Bible stays open.

You’re not poking at Reformed theology—you’re indicting biblical theology and slapping a moral subpoena on the Almighty. You’ve called the courtroom to order and put God in the defendant’s seat for crimes against your sense of fairness. So let’s walk this through—boots on, Bible in hand.

You say: “Faith is a gift, and if God doesn’t give it, then how is it just to punish someone for lacking it?”
Translation: “If I can’t do it unless God enables me, then God’s wrong to judge me for not doing it.”

But that’s not a problem with justice. That’s a problem with sin.

Let’s set the table straight.

You are not a neutral observer. No one is. Romans 1 says every man knows God and suppresses the truth in unrighteousness. Not ignorance—suppression. That’s not inability like a paralyzed man trying to walk. That’s rebellion like a drunk driver blaming the bartender after mowing down a stop sign.

You think people are condemned for not receiving faith? No. People are condemned because they hated the light (John 3:19), refused to glorify God (Rom. 1:21), and exchanged truth for a lie (Rom. 1:25). That’s not passive inability. That’s active guilt.

Now about this “selective mercy” you find so offensive—God choosing some and not others. Let me ask you: does God owe mercy? No. Because if He owes it, it’s no longer mercy—it’s entitlement. Grace by definition is undeserved. The scandal of election isn’t that God doesn’t choose everyone. It’s that He chooses anyone.

And yes, He creates people knowing they’ll rebel and be judged. Just like Pharaoh. Just like Judas. Scripture doesn’t flinch at that. It says He endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction—to make known the riches of His glory for vessels of mercy (Romans 9:22–23). You call that moral incoherence? Paul calls it divine prerogative. And then he silences every raised fist with this: “Who are you, O man, to answer back to God?” (Rom. 9:20)

See, you want a god who makes salvation possible for all, but guaranteed for none. God offers something better: a salvation that is impossible for all, but guaranteed for those He redeems. That’s not arbitrary. That’s breathtaking. That’s sovereign grace.

You say justice requires agency. Scripture says condemnation requires guilt. And everyone is guilty—willfully, knowingly, joyfully. Unless God intervenes. That’s not injustice. That’s rescue.

So here’s the real moral tension: not why God condemns sinners, but why He saves any at all.

If that truth burns, don’t blame the flame—check your foundation.

—Sincere Seeker. Scripturally savage. Here for the Truth.

1 Like
17

Alright, Sincere — gloves off it is.

You’re right that I’m raising a moral objection. Not to God, but to the system that says He creates people with no capacity to believe unless He chooses to grant it — and then punishes them eternally when He doesn’t.

You say that’s not injustice, it’s sin. But in your own theology, that sin is inherited, irresistible, and unescapable unless God intervenes. So again: how is it just to condemn someone for a condition they were born into and never empowered to escape?

You say God owes us nothing. Fine — that’s what makes it mercy. But justice is a different category. And punishing someone for what they were never given the ability to change isn’t mercy or justice. It’s raw power.

Divine prerogative doesn’t erase the moral contradiction — it just decouples divine declaration from decency.

Romans 9 doesn’t solve that tension. It dares us to shut up about it.

But if we’re meant to call God good, then goodness has to mean something. And moral coherence — not just authority — has to be part of that.

If it doesn’t, then sure, God wins. But justice loses.

18

Johann

Really appreciate the depth of your reply — there’s a lot to sit with, and I want to give it the time it deserves.

My instinct is that it leans quite heavily into grammar and scriptural legalism, and that may be part of the issue — but I need to flesh that out properly before I say more. I’ll post a fuller response soon.

With thanks to all for the engagement. Much appreciated.

1 Like
19

@Blindwatchmaker

Take your time, brother, but I do wonder at the “scriptural legalism”–care to elaborate? This is the yardstick, truth, Perfect tense, and not our Western, cultural, American philosophical arguments brother.

EASTERN LITERATURE (biblical paradoxes)

This insight (i.e., that the Bible is an eastern book, not a western book) has been the most helpful to me personally as one who loves and trusts the Bible as God’s Word. In trying to take the Bible seriously it became obvious that different texts reveal truth in selected, not systematic ways.
One inspired text cannot cancel or depreciate another inspired text!
Truth comes in knowing all Scripture (all Scripture, not just some, is inspired, cf. 2 Tim. 3:16-17).
Be careful of quoting a single passage (proof-texting)!

Most biblical truths (eastern literature) are presented in dialectical or paradoxical pairs (remember the NT authors, except Luke, are Hebrew thinkers, writing in common Greek). Wisdom Literature (see SPECIAL TOPIC: WISDOM LITERATURE) and Poetic Literature (see SPECIAL TOPIC: HEBREW POETRY) present truth in parallel lines. The antithetical parallelism functions like the paradox. This synthetic parallelism functions like parallel passages. Somehow both are equally true!

These paradoxes are painful to our cherished, simplistic, denominational, proof-texted traditions! Which of the following is true?
predestination or human free will (see SPECIAL TOPIC: ELECTION)
security of the believer (see SPECIAL TOPIC: ASSURANCE) or the need for perseverance (see SPECIAL TOPIC: PERSEVERANCE)
original sin or volitional sin (see SPECIAL TOPIC: THE FALL OF MANKIND)

Jesus as God or Jesus as man (cf. 1 John 4:1-4)
Jesus as equal with the Father or Jesus as subservient to the Father
Bible as God’s Word or human authorship
sinlessness (perfectionism, cf. Romans 6) or sinning less
initial instantaneous justification and sanctification or progressive sanctification (see SPECIAL TOPIC: SANCTIFICATION)
justification by faith (Romans 4) or justification confirmed by works (cf. James 2:14-26)
Christian freedom (cf. Rom. 14:1-23; 1 Cor. 8:1-13; 10:23-33) or Christian responsibility (cf. Gal. 5:16-21; Eph. 4:1; see SPECIAL TOPIC: CHRISTIAN FREEDOM vs. CHRISTIAN RESPONSIBILITY)
God’s transcendence or His immanence
God as ultimately unknowable (i.e., Ecclesiastes) or knowable in Scripture and Christ (John 1:1-4; 14:8-11)
the kingdom of God as present or a future consummation (see SPECIAL TOPIC: THE KINGDOM OF GOD)
repentance as a gift of God (cf. Acts 11:18; Rom. 2:4; 2 Tim. 2:25) or repentance as a mandated response for salvation (cf. Mark 1:15; Acts 20:21; see SPECIAL TOPIC: REPENTANCE [NT])
the OT is permanent or the OT has passed away and is null and void (cf. Matt. 5:17-19 vs. Matt. 5:21-48; Romans 7 vs. Galatians 3; and the book of Hebrews); see SPECIAL TOPIC: PAUL’S VIEWS OF THE MOSAIC LAW
believers are servants/slaves or children/heirs
Which of Paul’s images for salvation are true?
adoption
sanctification
justification
redemption
glorification
predestination
reconciliation
“Both. . .And” is a better theological model in understanding Eastern literature than “Either. . .Or.”

Doctrines come in “constellations of truth,” not which star is brightest" or “which one do I like the best”?!
“Bible Interpretation Seminar”

Three books that have helped me in this area are
G. B. Caird, The Language and Imagery of the Bible, which describes the many literary aspects of Eastern Literature (i.e., poetry, parable, sarcasm, hyperbole, as well as paradox).
Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart, How To Read the Bible For All Its Worth, which analyzes the different genres found in Scripture and how to interpret them
John H. Walton, Ancient Israelite Literature in Its Cultural Context

Johann.

20

Johann

Thanks for the detailed reply. I hear you on the nature of Scripture as Eastern literature, full of paradox and layered meaning. I agree we shouldn’t flatten tensions that the text itself seems to hold. But I think you’re sidestepping the actual issue I’m raising.

This isn’t about whether the Bible uses paradox. It’s about whether the theology you’re defending results in a morally coherent picture of justice.

We’re asked to accept a system where God demands belief for salvation, belief is not under human control unless God grants it, and yet unbelief is punished with eternal torment — and to see that not as injustice, but as “sovereign grace.” And when I ask whether that holds up morally, the response is: “Who are you, O man, to answer back to God?”

But that’s not an answer. That’s a refusal to engage the moral stakes of what’s being claimed.

Paradox is one thing. But when “both/and” is used to defend a system in which someone is held eternally accountable for something they were never given the power to do, we’re not talking about divine mystery. We’re talking about moral incoherence.

If God’s goodness means anything, it must at least be intelligible in principle. A system that calls it just to withhold what’s required, before punishing its absence, collapses the distinction between justice and raw authority. And appealing to paradox at that point doesn’t deepen understanding — it blunts moral scrutiny.

So yes, I respect the complexities of Scripture. But I can’t use paradox as cover for what would be indefensible in any other moral context. That’s not reverence. It’s abdication.

And I think God — if He is good — invites better questions than that.