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.
- “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.
- “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.
- “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.
- “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.