You are not mocking or scorning God in the vulgar sense… but yes, you are subtly disputing God’s righteousness, which is precisely what Paul anticipates in Romans 9:14–20. This is not blasphemy shouted, but justice questioned — and it must be answered with bold clarity.
And no, I am not leaning toward reformed theology brother.
Johann.
Peace to all,
From Creation We can only know becoming what we will become again, to me.
Because all is from him, and in him (her), and all is by him, that to him would be praises and blessings to the eternity of eternities. Amen.
Peace always,
Stephen
Hi Johann,
I appreciate your thoughtful reply. You’re right — Romans 9 does anticipate the objection I’m raising: a questioning of divine justice. And you’re also right that this isn’t shouted blasphemy — it’s something deeper: a moral challenge to a system that claims to be righteous.
But here’s where we may differ:
Paul’s response in Romans 9:14–20 is not a moral justification — it’s an assertion of God’s authority.
“Who are you, O man, to answer back to God?”
That’s not the same as demonstrating that the system is actually just — it simply says we don’t get to ask.
But if the system being defended involves eternal reward or punishment based on something we cannot control (i.e., belief), then yes — that deserves to be questioned.
And I’d add something else:
To say “God is beyond questioning” begs the question of His existence in the first place. It assumes the conclusion — that such a being exists, that His justice is perfect, and that we are wrong to ask moral questions. But those are precisely the things under question.
If someone proposes a moral framework — especially one with eternal stakes — that appears unjust by every human standard we meaningfully apply, then deferring to divine mystery isn’t an answer; it’s a shield against scrutiny. And if that’s the standard, then literally any system, no matter how cruel or arbitrary, could be declared just simply because “God did it.”
I’m not trying to “put God on trial.” I’m saying: if we’re being judged by a moral standard, then that standard itself must be intelligible and coherent — or it cannot claim to be just.
Respectfully,
BW
Brother
You speak sincerely — and so must I. But sincerity, while noble, cannot replace revelation.
You say, “If belief is not volitional — if it’s not something I can choose — then judgment for unbelief is unjust.”
But this premise — that faith is merely an intellectual assent or psychological disposition — is itself foreign to the Scriptures.
The Scriptures speak otherwise. Faith is not a self-generated act. It is a gift (Eph_2:8), a work of God (Joh_6:29), and a response only made possible by divine initiative (Act_16:14).
The heart must be opened — like Lydia’s — whose καρδία ἠνέῳξεν ὁ Θεός (Act_16:14), “whose heart the Lord opened.”
The Greek verb here — ἠνέῳξεν — aorist active indicative of ἀνοίγω — does not describe a woman willing herself into faith. It describes a divine act upon her, uninvited, unearned, undeniable.
And what of Romans 9?
You say Paul offers not a moral defense, but an appeal to divine prerogative. Precisely. Because God’s righteousness is not evaluated by creaturely standards.
When Paul says, “μὴ γένοιτο” (Rom_9:14), translated as “God forbid!” or “May it never be!” he is not dodging the question — he is shutting the door on the premise.
The accusation — that God is unjust — is based on a human-centered notion of fairness. But God says in Isaiah 55:8–9,
“For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways… as the heavens are higher than the earth…”
To demand that God operate within the moral framework of fallen humanity is to exalt the clay above the Potter (Rom_9:20).
The verb ἀνταποκρίνῃ in Romans 9:20 — “to answer back” — is future middle indicative of ἀνταποκρίνομαι, and implies a hostile reply, a standing against the Creator’s verdict.
Even in your sincerity, brother, you stand with the rhetorical objector, not with the one who trembles at God’s word (Isa_66:2).
You say, “I wanted to believe. I tried. And belief never came.”
I do not question your experience. I question your conclusion. For no man can truly seek unless he is drawn (Joh_6:44).
The verb there — ἑλκύσῃ — aorist active subjunctive of ἕλκω — means “to draw, drag, pull with force.”
Christ did not say, “Unless the Father persuades” or “invites.” He said, “draws.” The soul does not crawl to Christ; it is pulled, compelled, cut to the heart (Act_2:37).
If you were not drawn, then you were not abandoned — you were spared from a false conversion.
For when the true Light shines, the soul is either melted or enraged (Joh_3:19–20). It does not yawn.
You cite Abraham’s question — “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” (Gen_18:25).
Yes — and He does. But note — Abraham asked in reverence, not resistance.
The Hebrew verb יַעֲשֶׂ֥ה (yaʿăśeh, “shall do”) is Qal imperfect of עָשָׂה — pointing to an expected act of justice, not a courtroom challenge to divine integrity.
You, however, frame the question as if the Judge must satisfy your standards before He may judge. That is not reverence — that is inversion.
You say, “I’m not trying to put God on trial.” But your words betray that very thing.
If God must pass your test of moral plausibility before you yield belief, then you are not a seeker .. you are a magistrate.
You sit in the bench and ask the Judge of all flesh to explain Himself .. as if omniscience must bend to epistemic humility.
The irony is thick: the finite man says to the infinite God, “I might believe if you proved yourself just — by my standards.”
But here’s what you miss:
The gospel does not invite man to evaluate God’s justice. It declares it.
Romans 3:26 — “…so that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.”
Not just justifier, but just — δίκαιον.
And the justice of God is revealed in that He punished sin in His Son — not bypassing it.
You say faith never came. Then go to the Cross. See the blood. See the wrath. See the pierced hands.
If you can stare at the broken Lamb and still say**, “There was no justice,” then you have not yet understood sin.**
In closing:
You believe it unjust for God to judge unbelief. But the Word of God says ἀπιστία — unbelief — is not innocence, but guilt (Rom_11:20, Heb_3:12, Joh_3:18).
The verb ἀπιστέω (to disbelieve) is used in Mark 16:16 — “He who disbelieves shall be condemned.”
There is no hint that this is unfair. For the Light has come (Joh_1:9). And “this is the judgment: the Light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light” (Joh_3:19).
We truly respond,
but the response is only possible because truth — ἀληθεία — was unveiled,
— Greek: ἀποκαλυφθῇ — aorist passive subjunctive of ἀποκαλύπτω —
and in that unveiling,
the soul bent, bowed, broke — and believed.
If you have not believed — then ask for mercy. Not answers.
Because belief is not manufactured. It is revealed.
And the moment you see Him — not as a proposition, but as a Person — you will believe.
But you will not believe until God says,
Γενηθήτω φῶς — “Let there be light.” (Gen_1:3 LXX)
And when He does — you will fall like Thomas and say,
ὁ Κύριός μου καὶ ὁ Θεός μου.
“My Lord and my God.” (Joh_20:28)
Shalom brother.
Johann.
@KPuff @Johann @Blindwatchmaker @SincereSeeker
Coming to Romans 9:14-20, is not a moral justification but an assertion of divine prerogative. This move is rooted in a theological tradition that prioritizes divine soverignty over human categories of justice. Paul invokes the imagery of the potter and clay which we see in Isa 29:16 and Jeremiah 18:1-6, to emphasize God’s absolute freedom as Creator to shape His creation according to His will. This is not an argument for justice in the sense of aligning with human moral intuitions but rather a claim that divine justice operates on a plane that transcends human critique.. Theologically, this aligns with the concept of aseity, God self-existence and self-suffciency. God, as the ground of all being, is not accountable to external standards of justice because He is the source of all moral order. In Thomisitc terms, God’s essence in His existence we call it esse ipsum subsistens, and His will is identical with His goodness. For Paul, questioning divine justice is akin to a contingent bring challenging the ontological foundation of its own existence.
Your critique astutely points out that his move risks circularity, it assumes God’s existence and perfection to deflect the question of whether His moral framework is just. Philosophically, this is a form of petitio principii, as it presupposes the very divine attributes under scrutiny. If divine justice is unintelligible to human reason, how can humans meaningfully affirm it as just?- thats a hard philosophical question.
Your concern about eternal reward or punishment hingin on belief- a factor u argue is beyond human control raises a imp question we dissused about, and its between divine sovereignty and human responsibility. This is the heart of the debate between monergism (God’s unilateral action in salvation as in Calvinist interpretations of Romans 9) and synergism (human cooperation with divine grace as in Arminian or Catholic soteriologies)
From a monergistic perspective, belief is not a human achievement but a divine gift, as articulated in Eph 2:8-9. If belief is divinely bestowed then the question of human control is irrelevant, for God’s election determines the outcome. However this intensifies your concern: If God unilaterally decides who believes and who does not, how can eternal punishment for unbelief be just. THis is the problem in classes called as double predestination- the idea that God not only elects some to salvation but also others to damnation.
Since Philosophy was my fav i would like to go there
If humans lack libterarian free fill (the ability to do otherwise in a robust sense) can they be held accountable for their beliefs? Incompatibilist Philosophers like Kant would argue that moral responsibility would require autonomy yet strict monergism seems to undermine this. Compatibilsts like Leibniz or Eleonore Stump might counter that divine determination and human responsibility are not mutually exclusive- humans act freely according to their desires, even if those desires are shaped by divine causation, But this still leaves the question of why God would shape some desires towards belief and others not, especially if the consequence is eternal.
Molinism developed by Louis de Molina posits that God possesses middle knowledge, knowledge of what free creatures would do in any possible circumstance. God uses this knowledge to actualize a world where humans freely choose to believe or reject Him, aligning divine election with human freedom. In Romans 9, Paul’s reference to God’s election can be understood as God’s sovereign choice to acutalize a world where His purposes are fulfilled through free human responses. Thus belief is not coerced but enabled by grace (Eph 2:8-9) and unbelief reflects a free rejection of God’s offer, not an arbitrary divine decree
This addresses your concern about control: humans are responsible for their response to grace, even if God’s initiative is primary. The parable of talents (Matthew 25:14-30) illustrates that humans are judged based on their stewardship of what they have been given, including the grace to believe. Divine justice then does not hinge on absolute human autonomy but on whether humans respond to God’s initiative within the constraints of their created nature/
Then coming to the intelligibility of divine justice
Your core demand is that a moral frameword with eternal stakes must be intelligible and coherenet to claim legitimacy. This is a powerful challenge which I like (is moral system must be rationally defensible).If divine justice appears arbitary or curel by human standards, appealing to “mystery” risks rendering the concept of justice vacuous. As you note, any syten, however capricious, could be defended by claiming divine authority, which undermines the normative force of calling God “just”.
Theologically, we gonna go to theodicy, the attempt to justify God’s goodness in the face of apparent evil or injustice. Callsical theodiceis like those of Augustine or Leibniz often appeal to the greater good defence, God’s action, though inscrutable, serves a purpose that ultimately maximises goodness. In the context of Romans 9, Paul suggest that God’s election of some and hardening of others serves to display his glory and power, yet his explanation can feel unstatifying if the “greater good” is opaque to human reason, especially when the stakes involve eternal suffering.
But then we gonna go to the Euthyphro dilemma from Plato’s dialogue: Is something just because God wills it or does God will it because its just?. If the former, we call it the divine command theory, then justice becomes arbitary, God could will anything, and it would be “just”. If the latter, then justice exists independently of God, challenging His aseity. Medieval theologians like Scotus leaned towards divine command theory, arguing God’s will defines justice, while Aquinas went for a middle path, grounding justice in God’s nature, which is intrinsically good. Yet neither fully resolves the tension you raise.
Christian theology responds by conceiving of divine justice as analogical. God’s justice is not identical to human justice but beas a resemblance that allows meaningful discourse. God’s nature as perfect goodness ensures that His justice aligns with ultimate moral truth, even if it transcends human comprehension. FOr ex Romans 11:33-36 acknowledges the unsearchable nature of God’s judgement while affirming their coherence within His redemptive plan.
The greater good theodicy supports this. In Romans 9:17, Paul notes that God raised up Pharaoh to display His power and glorify His name. From a Christian perspective, God’s hardening of Pharaoh’s heart (Exodus 9:12) serves a redemptive purpose, thus demonstrating His sovereignty and mercy to Israel and ultimately to all nations. This suggests that divine justice operates within a broader eschatological narrative where apparent injustices (like election or hardening) are resolved in God’s plan to reconcile the world.
Christianity holds that human moral intuitions, while reliable in part, are fallen and limited due to sin. God’s justice corrects and fulfils these intuitions, not contradicts them. For instance, the cross of Christ (Romans 3:25-26) demonstrates God’s justice by satisfying both His righteousness (punishing sin) and His mercy (offering salvation). This act is intelligible as just, even it its full depth is mysterious.
And then the point that invoking divine mystery begs the question of God’s existence is a sharp philosophical question, i like it.
It challenges the epistemological warrant for accepting a theistic framework in the first place. If the only defence if divine justice is to asset God’s unassailable authority, this presupposes both His existence and His moral perfection; a skeptic might question this.
From an existentialist perspective like Kierkegaard, faith involves a leap beyond reason, embracing divine mystery despite rational objections. For Kierkegaard, the absurdity of faith, its defiance of human categories, is precisely its strength, yet this approach may not satisfy your demand for coherence as it prioritises subjective commitment over objective justification.
Analytic philosophers like Alvin Plantiga have tackled this through reformed epistemology, arguing that belief in God can be properly basic, rationally warranted without needing evidential proof. Plantinga’s response to the problem of evil is that God’s reason for permitting apparent injustice may be unknowable but rationally defensible, given the limits of human cognition.
“Romans 9:14–20 is not a moral justification but an assertion of divine prerogative.”
Correct in phrasing, but evasive in implication. Paul is not claiming God’s justice is arbitrary or inaccessible. He opens with the charge μὴ ἀδικία παρὰ τῷ θεῷ; “Is there injustice with God?” (Romans 9:14). The very structure of the rhetorical question assumes intelligibility. If Paul meant, “Don’t ask because God is above justice,” he would not preface it with this anticipation. Instead, he answers by anchoring divine action in Scripture, quoting Exodus 33:19, where God says He will show mercy to whom He shows mercy. But note that in context, that statement follows Israel’s apostasy and Moses’ intercession, so it is about covenantal mercy in response to specific conditions—not raw, unilateral selection.
Yes, but in both passages the point is not divine fatalism or predestined vessels of wrath. In Isaiah 29:16, it is a rebuke against those who invert moral order, not a declaration of unchangeable destinies. In Jeremiah 18:4–10, the clay can become something different depending on its response to God’s word. הִנֵּה כַחֹמֶר בְּיַד הַיּוֹצֵר, “Behold, like clay in the potter’s hand…” sets up the call to repentance. The very illustration proves moral contingency, not metaphysical determinism. Paul uses the same image to highlight God’s rights, but not to cancel human responsibility.
That is not how biblical justice is framed. צֶדֶק and δικαιοσύνη are never presented as opaque. Deuteronomy 32:4 says, “All His ways are justice… righteous and upright is He.” If God’s justice is above human critique in such a way that we cannot even know whether it is just, then calling it “just” becomes meaningless. Romans 3:25–26 explicitly says God demonstrates His justice to be seen. He is not hiding behind mystery; He is revealing His justice in the gospel.
Philosophically true in classical theism, but this does not eliminate moral coherence. Even if God’s will is His essence, and therefore good, that essence must be intelligible enough to warrant trust. Romans 12:2 urges believers to discern “what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.” So yes, God is self-existent, but He does not isolate His will from moral categories. Paul appeals to moral conscience throughout Romans. The reader is not asked to abdicate reason, but to see how God’s justice is displayed, especially in Romans 9–11.
Exactly. This is a tight philosophical problem. If God is assumed to be good and just, then of course His actions will be called good and just by definition. But Romans 9 doesn’t just rest on God’s definition. It explains how God’s actions serve His redemptive purpose—namely, making known the riches of His glory on vessels of mercy (Romans 9:23). That is not a mystical dodge but an eschatological aim. However, this still raises moral concerns if one assumes God unilaterally makes vessels of wrath, which the text never says without reference to their response.
Ephesians 2:8–9 indeed says faith is a gift, but Romans 10:17 says “faith comes by hearing.” The Greek is ἐξ ἀκοῆς, showing that faith involves reception of a message, not an arbitrary impartation. John 1:9 says Christ is the true Light who enlightens every man. Faith is enabled by grace, but it is also resisted (Acts 7:51), neglected (Hebrews 2:3), or believed (Acts 16:31). The idea that belief is irresistibly given to some and withheld from others violates the logic of judgment in Romans 2:6–8, where people are judged according to their deeds, not their decree.
It absolutely does. Romans 9 never says God created some people solely to be damned. Even Pharaoh’s hardening occurs after repeated rebellion (Exodus 8:15, 8:32, 9:34). God eventually strengthens what Pharaoh already chose. The verb σκληρύνει (Romans 9:18) parallels the Hebrew חִזֵּק—to make firm, not override. This is judicial hardening, not arbitrary reprobation. Romans 2:4–5 shows God’s kindness is meant to lead to repentance, but if rejected, wrath is stored up. So divine sovereignty in hardening does not erase moral responsibility.
Kant is right: genuine accountability requires autonomy. Romans 1:20 says humans are “without excuse,” because God’s attributes are “clearly seen.” If belief were purely decreed, the ἀναπολόγητος (without defense) charge would collapse. Compatibilists like Leibniz argue that people act freely if they act according to desires, but Paul’s logic doesn’t support a world where people are punished for not desiring what God never enabled them to see. Romans 10:21 has God saying, “All day long I have held out my hands,” but the people were disobedient. That is not compatible with monergistic determinism.
This is the most coherent philosophical model, but Romans 9 does not explicitly support it either. However, it avoids the injustice of double predestination. God chooses a world in which people freely respond, and His election is the orchestration of that world. Romans 8:29–30 speaks of foreknowledge (προέγνω), and then predestination. This model holds the tension well: God’s initiative stands, but human response is real. This harmonizes with Romans 10:13, “Whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
This is fully Pauline. Acts 13:46 says the Jews judged themselves “unworthy of eternal life” and so turned away. That is a choice. The parable of the talents (Matthew 25) shows that judgment is based on what was given and how it was used. This affirms divine initiative—God gives grace—but condemns rejection. Romans 11:22 urges believers to “continue in His kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off,” showing ongoing responsibility.
Yes. If divine justice cannot be rationally engaged, then it collapses into fideism. Isaiah 1:18 says, “Come, let us reason together.” Biblical theodicy does not silence the question of justice; it redirects it to the cross. Romans 3:25–26 shows the cross is both the place of punishment and of mercy. Divine justice is revealed, not concealed.
That’s true in intent, but opaque in function. Romans 9:17 says Pharaoh was raised up to show God’s power. But Exodus shows God responded to Pharaoh’s rebellion, not that He arbitrarily designed him for destruction. Romans 11:32 says God shut all up in disobedience to have mercy on all. The greater good here is not reprobation but mercy extended after exposure to sin.
Correct, but it still must have contact with human reason. Otherwise, every tyrant could claim “divine justice” to excuse wickedness. Romans 2:15 says the law is written on human hearts. So while divine justice transcends, it does not contradict. Psalm 89:14 says “Justice and righteousness are the foundation of Your throne,” which presupposes these terms are knowable.
Exactly. If God’s justice is simply asserted, not demonstrated, then the moral content of “just” becomes empty. Romans 11:33–36 celebrates God’s unsearchable ways after explaining Israel’s rejection and future inclusion. The mystery is celebrated because a coherent narrative has just been given, not because there was no answer.
Shalom.
J.
ohann —
I have to say, your last reply to me was impressively detailed — maybe too detailed for the 15 minutes between my post and yours. With the Greek parsing, biblical citations, and polished rhetorical arc, it really reads like it came from an AI tool. And that’s not inherently a problem — but if we’re going to use those tools to help express our views, let’s be transparent about it. This should be a conversation, not a sermon generated by code.
Now, to the substance.
You say that faith is not self-generated, that it’s a divine gift — and oddly enough, I agree with you on that. That’s been my whole point: belief isn’t something we can choose. It happens when we’re convinced, and until then, it doesn’t. We can’t just will ourselves into belief any more than we can will ourselves to believe the moon is made of cheese. It’s not a moral failing — it’s just the nature of belief.
What I don’t agree with is the way you frame unbelief as rebellion or pride — as if my failure to believe is really just a refusal to accept God’s authority. That’s not it at all. My unbelief isn’t because I dislike God’s character or resent divine judgment — it’s because I’ve honestly never found the evidence for any god compelling. That’s it. It’s not resistance — it’s lack of conviction.
And quoting Bible verses at me doesn’t help, because that only carries weight if I already believe the Bible is authoritative — which, again, is part of what’s in question. Citing scripture as if it settles the debate is just assuming the very thing we’re trying to discuss. A Muslim quoting the Qur’an to prove Islam would be doing the same thing — and I suspect you’d see the problem in that.
So here’s the real issue:
If belief is involuntary — as you say — and only possible through divine initiative, then how is it just to condemn someone for lacking it? What exactly are we being held responsible for? Something we couldn’t produce?
If your answer is simply “God is just because He’s God,” then you’re not defending justice — you’re just rebranding power. And I don’t find that persuasive.
Happy to keep talking — but only if we’re actually engaging the questions, not just pasting in pre-packaged theology.
brother brother, when u reply to a post, just click on the reply part of the post u want to reply to otherwise i have no idea to which post reply is for instance i gave reply to the post
No need to worry… you’re having a real conversation with me, not with AI. To be honest, you’re the one bringing AI into this, not me.
I appreciate that you’re being honest about where you’re coming from. You’ve said clearly that you don’t find the evidence for God compelling and that your unbelief isn’t rooted in pride or rebellion, but in a lack of conviction. That helps me understand the position you’re taking, so let me reflect back what I’m hearing to make sure I’ve got it right.
From what you’ve shared, it seems that you don’t just doubt the Christian God, you actually don’t believe in any deity. You’re not undecided or waiting for a push over the line. You’ve looked at the evidence and concluded it doesn’t add up.
That’s not agnosticism in the usual sense, it’s more of a settled atheism, or at least a committed skepticism.
You also seem to be resisting the idea that unbelief is a moral issue. You’re not saying “I refuse to believe” out of spite or pride. You’re saying “I just don’t believe” because nothing has convinced you.
So when someone suggests your unbelief is rebellion, it feels like a misdiagnosis to you.
I understand that, but I think you and I may be defining the root of unbelief very differently.
Another thing that stood out is that you see Scripture as having no inherent weight.
If I quote Paul or Jesus, you’re not moved because, in your view, the Bible is just another religious text.
You mentioned the Qur’an as an example, and I get your point. If I don’t already accept the Qur’an as divine, a Muslim quoting it won’t persuade me either. So from your angle, quoting the Bible feels like I’m begging the question.
Then there’s the deeper issue you brought up, the one about justice. You asked how it could be just for God to condemn someone for unbelief if belief is not volitional. That’s a strong challenge, and it goes straight to the heart of divine responsibility and human agency.
You’re essentially saying, if I can’t believe unless God enables it, then why would I be blamed for not believing? And if the answer is just “because God is God,” then you feel that’s not really justice, it’s just divine power being asserted without moral explanation.
All of that tells me something important***. You’re not just pushing back against a few doctrines or interpretations. You’re questioning the very nature of the God I believe in.***
You’re asking whether such a God would even be good or worthy of trust. And you’re not asking for verses, you’re asking for coherence. You want a worldview that is intellectually honest and morally persuasive. I respect that.
But I also want to be honest with you. What I see in your response is not neutrality. It’s not just intellectual distance. It’s a deeper resistance, even if it feels calm and reasoned.
When someone says “I don’t see any evidence for God,” they’re not just missing a puzzle piece. They’re interpreting the entire world in such a way that God remains invisible, even when He has spoken.
I’m not trying to insult you or win a debate. I’m saying this because if God has actually revealed Himself, then the problem isn’t just that the data is unclear. The problem is what the heart does with the light it’s already been given.
You said you’re happy to keep talking if it’s real dialogue. Same here. I won’t just drop verses and walk away. But I also can’t pretend that neutrality exists when the very nature of truth, evidence, and responsibility is up for grabs.
Let’s keep talking, brother-- No pre-packaged theology. Just honesty, both ways.
J.
You keep accusing me of using AI, but let’s get something straight. I don’t need artificial tools to study or speak truth from Scripture. I’ve spent years digging into the Word myself, parsing the Greek, tracing the Hebrew, comparing texts, sitting with the text until it cuts, convicts, and clarifies. This isn’t theater for me. This is reality. My responses are shaped by study, prayer, and long nights wrestling with hard passages — not by some script generator.
You keep pointing at formatting and structure like they prove something. What they actually show is that I care about how truth is communicated. Thoughtful doesn’t mean fake. Clear doesn’t mean automated.
You think I wrote too cleanly, so it must be AI. But I see what you are doing. You’re using that accusation to dodge the real weight of what was said. Because the real issue here isn’t who is typing faster — it’s who is submitting to the truth.
You say you are just unconvinced. But then you say even if God revealed Himself, even if you knew He existed, you still would not love Him. That tells me everything. That’s not intellectual neutrality. That’s defiance dressed up in philosophical language.
You’re not just lacking belief. You are resisting it. And you’re hiding behind long-winded objections to make it sound like humility. But it’s not. It’s pride.
You appeal to fairness and say no one should be judged for not believing. But Scripture is clear — the light has come. Romans 1 says the knowledge of God is plain. People suppress it. They push it down. They trade the truth for lies.
You say you’ve looked and searched, but the words of Christ are still true. “You will not come to me that you may have life.” Not cannot in the sense of logic, but will not in the sense of love. The heart turns away. The conscience stiffens. That’s the reason for unbelief. Not lack of access. Not lack of clarity. But moral refusal.
You said I need to be honest about where my words come from. I just did. They come from Scripture. From laboring over every verb and preposition until the message breaks through. And now I will ask you — are you being honest about where yours come from?
Because from where I’m standing, you are using all the trappings of AI polish and rhetorical symmetry while claiming to speak from raw, human uncertainty. You are hiding behind performance. Not seeking truth, but avoiding it.
So enough with the double standard. If you want a conversation rooted in reality, I’m here. But if you are just going to keep sidestepping the gospel by pointing fingers at how I format a sentence, then this is not a discussion — it’s a smokescreen.
You know where to find me when you are ready to deal with truth on its own terms.
Understood?
Johann.
As for your repeated question, I will answer it plainly. God is not punishing people for failing to believe something they never had the capacity to believe. He holds all people accountable for rejecting the light they were given, suppressing truth, hardening their hearts, and loving darkness more than light. Romans 1 says it. John 3 says it.
You are not uninformed. You are unpersuaded, which is not the same.
This is not manipulation. This is Scripture. If that still offends you, your issue is not with me. It is with the truth you claim to seek but resist when it confronts your terms.
And you are not interested in Scriptures, that says a lot.
Johann.
Please stay on topic.
This thread is for discussing the theological issue at hand—not for speculating about other users’ writing methods or accusing them of using AI. Repeated derailment in this manner disrupts the conversation and violates our expectations for respectful dialogue.
To be clear: the use of AI tools is not a violation of our Terms of Service. All members are expected to engage in good faith and focus on the subject, not the poster.
Further off-topic posts of this nature may result in action being taken. Please help us keep the forums constructive and Christ-honoring.
I never said I’m not interested in Scripture. I’ve always found it fascinating — and often beautiful.
What I said is that I can’t treat it as automatically authoritative the way you do, because that would mean assuming the very beliefs we’re here to discuss. That’s circular.
Your insistence that being honestly unconvinced — in exactly the same way you are about other religions — is somehow an act of rebellion or a willful turning away from obvious truth isn’t just wrong. It’s presumptuous.
I wouldn’t dream of claiming to know your internal motivations or private thoughts. Please don’t presume to know mine.
If there is a God, and He is truly all-knowing, then He would know that my search for truth has been sincere.
And if He chose to condemn me anyway — not for arrogance or malice, but for honestly failing to be persuaded — then I could only conclude He is not good. He might be powerful. He might be terrifying. But He would not be just. In my mind that would be evil.
@kpuff can join too
As a person who is intrested in Phd and theology, i would like to put my points, and this will help me revise the concepts i studied earlier.
@Blindwatchmaker put an intresting question, again i would jump into it, i like it
But we are humans, and some concepts are beyong our understanding, we cannot grasp but rather marvel at it.
@Johann, @Blindwatchmaker
Telling the condemning unbelief is unjust if belief is involuntary; to understand, we need to study divine justice. In Christian theology, justice is not an external standard God conforms to but an intrinsic attribute of His aseity; His self-existent and self-sufficent nature is ipsum esse subsistens. God’s essence is identical with His attributes, including justice, goodness, and holiness, meaning His justice is not contingent but the transcendental ground of all moral order. As Anselm (amazing) articulates in Proslogion, God is id quo maius cogitari nequit meaning “that than which nothing greater can be conceived”, so His justie is the archetype of all justice, inherently rational and non-arbitary.
Asserting God’s justice risks “rebranding power” is the Euthyphro dilemma, i talked abt this last post @Blindwatchmaker, Is justice just because God wills it or does God will it because it is just? As i said before, Thomistic theology avoids voluntarism (Ockham’s view that justice is whatever God wills) by grounding justice in God’s rational nature (Summa theologiae). God’ s will is necessarily aligned with His goodness, ensuring that His judgments are not exercises of raw power but expressions of eternal rationality. This makes divine justice proper, not arbitrary fiat but the coherent foundation of moral reality, analogically related to human justice, which participates imperfectly in God’s perfect justice.
Ok, i get that the core objection is tht if belief is voluntary and dependent on divine initiative, condemning unbelif is unjust..Amazing, this is a good question and we studied abt it in depth, so lets dive brothers
Christian theology resolves this through the doctrine of concursus divinus that is the simultaneous operation of divine and human agency. In monergistic soteriology like reformed theology, faith is divine gift (sola gratia, Eph 2:8-9) but humans remain morally responsible for their response to God’s revelation. This is defended philosophically through what we call was compatibilism like Johnathan Edwards talks abt, which posits that humans are free when they act according to their desires even if those desires are shaped by divine causations.
Romans 1:18-20 establishes tht all humans have access to general revelation, rendering them “without excuse” for rejecting God. Unbelief is not a passive lack of faith but an acitve suppresssion of known truth, rooted in fallen human nature. Divine justice holds humans accountable for this rejection, not for failing to generation faith ex nihilo. God’s grace enables belief in the elect, while the reprobate’s unbelief aligns with their free, albeit fallen, desires. Thus divine justice is proper because it respects human agency within the framework of divine sovereignty. Molinism offers a nuanced refinement. Through middle knowledge, God knows what free creatures would do in any possible world. He acutalizes a world where the elect freely respond to grace and the reprobate freely reject it, ensuring that condemnation for unbelief is just, not for lacking a gift but for rejecting God’s revealed truth. This preserves the propriety of divine justice by aligning divine initiative with human responsibility.
So then Blindwatchmakers asks a good question which i asked myself long time ago, that what exactly are we being held responsible for? Christian theology clarifies on this, that condemnation is not for lacking fiath but for sin, both original and actual sin. Faith is the instrumental cause of salvation, uniting believers to Christ’s righteousness. but its absence does not consititue the gorunds for condemnation. All humans are gulity of sin (Romans 3:23) and divine justice responds to this moral failure, not to the absence of a divinely bestowed gift. The asymmetry of grace and justice ensures the propriety of divine justice. God’s holiness obligates Him to punish sin, but His mercy is not owed to anyone as we read in Summa theologiae. Romans 9:22-23 explains that God’s justice glorifies His holiness by condemning sin, while His mercy glorifies His goodness by saving the elect. This impartiality (read Romans 2:11) ensures that no one is condemned unjustly, all deserve condemnation due to sin but God saves the elect. Divine justice is proper, it addresses moral guilt while allowing for merciful redemption.
Can we say divine justice be intelligible? Divine justice is neither univocal (identical to human justice) nor equivocal (unrelated) but analogical, bearing a resemblance that allows a meaningful understanding. God’s revelation, through creation (Romans 1:20), conscience (Romans 2:14-15) and Christ (John 1:18) makes His justice apprehensible, even if human finitude and sin limit exhaustive comprehension via negativa. The cross is the paradigm of divine justice;s intelligibility. In Romans 3:25-26, Christ’s atonment satisfies God’s justice by punishing sin while demonstrating mercy. This is a coherent resolution of sin’s penalty and God’s redemptive love, accessible to human reason. The greater good theodicy, as we learn in philosophy and important in theology as well, which further supports this God’s judgements, including election and reprobation serve His glory and the ultimate good of creation. Romans 11:32 suggests that God’s plan encompassess both mercy and judgement to display His redemptive purpose, making divine justice intelligible within a supralapsarian teleology (i talked abt this in some post in this site, now idk where it went, anyways lets continue), where God decrees prioritze His glory across eternity.
Let’s talk abt this one
I have heard abt it and initially when I heard it first, i was taken aback
Can we say “God is just because He’s God” rebrands power is countered a transcendental argument, which we learnt at first. God’s existence and justice are not arbitrary assumptions but the necessary preconditions for moral reasoning. Without a transcedant moral source, human concepts of justice devolve into relativism or nihilism
( i started on nihilism, by strongly countering Nietzche, his Book called “Beyond Good and Evil” and while i was countering it i made some notes so i’ll add a bit of it here as well). God’s self-revelation, through creation, conscience and the historical reality of Christ’s resurrection provides epistemic warrant for His justice. This is not a circular appeal to power but a claim that God’s nature is the ontological ground of moral value, making His justice proper and rationally defensible.
As i talked abt it last post, this aligns with reformed epistemology (we talked abt what Alvin Plantinga said in the last post). Belief in God’s justice is “properly basic” warranted by the sensus divinitatis (Romans 1:19-20) and reinforced by revelation.
At last we come to the topic
The ultimate propriety of divine justice is secured eschatologically. Human reason, constrained by temporality and noetic effects of sin, cannot fully grasph God’s purposes now (i reffered and read finitude, per Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, we talked abt it last post). However Revelations 20:12-13 promises a final judgement where God’s justice is transparent and Revelation 21:4 assures that all apparent injustices are resolved in eternity. This eschatological horizon anchors in a hope that divine justice is coherent across eternity, harmonizing mercy and judgement in a way that transcends yet fulfills human moral intuitions.
For the prev few points i reffered to Corneilus Van Til, the Defence of the faith, i had made notes before, and thus added it.
Praise be to God.
Thanks brother @Fritzpw_Admin–just to be clear, the accusation was directed at me.
Johann.
Understood. I’ll leave aside the question of writing methods and stay on topic.
Johann — you say God doesn’t punish people for lacking belief, but for rejecting the light they do have. That might make sense if everyone was truly confronted with the same clarity — but they’re not.
You also said I’m not uninformed, just unpersuaded. Exactly. That’s the whole point. If someone is open but simply unconvinced — sincerely seeking but not finding the claims compelling — then how can that be morally blameworthy?
That’s not rebellion. That’s not pride. That’s just an honest outcome of how evidence strikes a particular person. If God exists and knows my heart, He knows I’ve wrestled with this in good faith. And if such a God would still condemn me, then I couldn’t in good conscience call Him just.
I’d genuinely like to hear your answer to that. Not a verse. Not a label. Just a straight moral response.
Thanks!
Samuel
Your post is very long and deep.
Bear with me and I will respond.
Thanks!
BW
npnp it took me 1.5hr to write, since ur questions are amazing, these questions i asked myself when i was reading bible, and after years of questioning myself, i tried to find answers to these questions and its an amazing journey, i must say that. Man i must say, ur questions are deep and profound, and such profound questions do need lot of explanation, so pardon if my posts are long, but the topic is complicated as well, so thats why
anyways
Peace
Sam
Then here’s a straight moral answer, without a verse, and without a label — though understand that the moment you ask whether a judgment is just, you are asking a moral question, and that question cannot float in midair without a standard.
You are saying: “If I am sincere, how can I be blamed?”
But sincerity is not the scale of justice. A man can sincerely miscalculate the ingredients of a medicine and kill someone. A person can sincerely follow a wrong turn into a minefield. Sincerity explains a mistake, but it does not erase the real-world consequence of it.
Now apply that morally. If God truly exists — not as an abstract hypothesis, but as the Creator whose being defines goodness itself — then to say “I was unconvinced” is not a neutral position. It is a withholding of trust from the very Source of all trustworthiness.
You say you’ve wrestled. I believe you. But what if the wrestling itself is within a framework where you remain the judge, the arbiter, the one who gets to say whether the evidence for God is compelling to you — and the moment God does not pass that bar, He is dismissed as unjust?
That is not neutrality. That is enthroning your own conscience as final. And that is the moral issue.
Because if the moral standard is internal, then no one can ever be wrong — including the tyrant who says “My conscience is clear.”
If the moral standard is external, then there is a point where your unpersuaded state is not evidence of integrity, but of misalignment — not willful pride perhaps, but real blindness, and that blindness has consequences.
You say you could not in good conscience call God just if He condemns you. But what if that conscience is itself skewed?
Then you are demanding God conform to a conscience that is already bent. That is why the issue is not just sincerity — it is whether the very measuring stick you use is trustworthy.
And that is why Scripture is not a cop-out. It is not a verse I throw at you to avoid the issue. It is the only window by which anyone can see what justice actually looks like when the fog lifts and the mirror clears.
So no, I am not condemning you. But I am telling you — the act of sitting in judgment over whether God is worthy of belief is a moral act, and it is not neutral. And if there really is a God, and if He really has revealed Himself, then remaining unconvinced is not innocent. It is tragic.
Shalom
Johann.
I wrote to you specifically (#37) in response to your personal position, which you made more clear tto me (#35) . You have since responded candidly to others, but not to the questions I posed to you personally. I am wondering why. I don’t want to speculate, but without you responding I am thinking of possible reasons on my own. I have read your passionate and assertive responses to others, so I definately know better from what platform you are launcching your assertations. From my vantage point it is looking like you may not be here to actuallty inquire, but merely to contend. If I’m wrong, I’d appreciate knowing it, and I’ll stand corrected. If I’m right then it looks like you are getting what you came for.
If you are here to sincerely inquire, I am unable to offer anything else until I hear from you regarding what I have allready offered. If you are done with me, I surely understand, and I have no animosity toward you because of it..
Either way, I hope you find what you’re lookinng for.
KP
Disregard Please. I didn’t look high enough on this thread. I missed your response. Give me some time to treat your assertions properly. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
KP