Does 'Non-Calvinisitic' theology really exalt the view of man?

[Skandelon]

It is very common to hear the accusation from Calvinists that the non-Calvinistic view of man is exalting, or in some way makes mankind "better" than they really are. But may I suggest and make the case that the opposite is actually true:

Consider the "insanity defense" in our judicial system. What is it based upon? It's the concept that a man who is born insane (i.e. uncontrollable chemical make up of his brain, etc) is not really responsible for his actions and thus is not really "guilty" though he may need to be locked away for treatment and care. Compare this with someone clearly rational and sane individual who commits a pre-meditated crime.​

Now, which of these two criminals is worse? The one born unable to do anything except commit crimes because of his inherent illness or the one born normal who chooses to commit his crimes?

According to our judicial system, and that of scripture, the worse individual is the latter, not the former, right? That is why the insane aren't deemed 'guilty' after all.

Now, compare the Calvinist view of the natural/unbelieving man and the non-Calvinist view of the same:

The Calvinist view has them born unable to willingly do anything except sin and reject any appeal to be reconciled to God, much like the insane. You may call him "responsible" but ultimately the reason he doesn't believe is because God didn't elect him and provide what was needed for him to choose otherwise.

On the other hand, the non-Calvinist view of the unbeliever is more like the rational, sane criminal who commits the pre-meditated crime. God provided all that he needed to see, hear, and understand and thus he stands without a single excuse. God loves him, didn't want him to perish, made a sincere appeal to be reconciled and he rationally considered the truth and chose to trade it in for lies. He stands condemned for no other reason except that he chose to rebel and turn his back on an all loving, benevolent, and long-suffering Father.
​

Thus, the view of the unbelieving man in the non-Calvinistic system is MUCH worse. You feel sorry for the man in the Calvinistic system because he couldn't help it. He wasn't chosen or regenerated. You pity him, but his rebellion is justified to some extent because he had absolutely no control over it. He is just like the insane man that we declare 'not-guilty' in our own judicial system.

Therefore, I submit that Calvinism is the system guilty of exalting the view of man all the while lessoning the view of God by making Him ultimately responsible for the unbelievers rejection of his appeal to be reconciled by declaring that all inherit the "totally depraved/unable" nature from birth.

 

[JesusFan]

It is very common to hear the accusation from Calvinists that the non-Calvinistic view of man is exalting, or in some way makes mankind "better" than they really are. But may I suggest and make the case that the opposite is actually true:

Actually, what is said is that non Cals tend NOT to see how we were ruined spiritually by the Fall, that we are indeed dead in our sin natures, and simple unable to respondand come to God in and by ourselves!

Consider the "insanity defense" in our judicial system. What is it based upon? It's the concept that a man who is born insane (i.e. uncontrollable chemical make up of his brain, etc) is not really responsible for his actions and thus is not really "guilty" though he may need to be locked away for treatment and care. Compare this with someone clearly rational and sane individual who commits a pre-meditated crime.​

Now, which of these two criminals is worse? The one born unable to do anything except commit crimes because of his inherent illness or the one born normal who chooses to commit his crimes?

According to our judicial system, and that of scripture, the worse individual is the latter, not the former, right? That is why the insane aren't deemed 'guilty' after all.

Now, compare the Calvinist view of the natural/unbelieving man and the non-Calvinist view of the same:

The Calvinist view has them born unable to willingly do anything except sin and reject any appeal to be reconciled to God, much like the insane. You may call him "responsible" but ultimately the reason he doesn't believe is because God didn't elect him and provide what was needed for him to choose otherwise.​

We believe that man is found to be "in Adam" as a result of the fall, as Adam represented all of us before God as head of human race, and we were accounted as being in him and thus sharing in his sin before God and the judgement pronounced against him for sinning by God!

We are either reprsented by our 'head' of adam, who ALL are physical born into "his likeness' as sinners by nature, and spiritually dead before God, while all those reborn are in "likeness" of Christ, and spiritually reborn again!

On the other hand, the non-Calvinist view of the unbeliever is more like the rational, sane criminal who commits the pre-meditated crime. God provided all that he needed to see, hear, and understand and thus he stands without a single excuse. God loves him, didn't want him to perish, made a sincere appeal to be reconciled and he rationally considered the truth and chose to trade it in for lies. He stands condemned for no other reason except that he chose to rebel and turn his back on an all loving, benevolent, and long-suffering Father.

Actually, more akin to humans being theones that will allow/permit God to be able to save us,, as he sends his message and provides jesus death to us, but we will decide IF we will alow God to apply His desired salvation to us!

its as if we are rebelling against the biblical concepts of us being SINNERS and unable to do ANYTHING other than totally relying upon the Grace and Will of God to save us!

Undercuts the Soveireingty of God when you have it that he is 'stuck" waiting to see if we will decide to receive reject jesus, as that we allow him to save us when we invite Him in... leaves God as sending jesus to die on our behalf, but not really sure if ANY will take Him up on His offer!


Thus, the view of the unbelieving man in the non-Calvinistic system is MUCH worse. You feel sorry for the man in the Calvinistic system because he couldn't help it. He wasn't chosen or regenerated. You pity him, but his rebellion is justified to some extent because he had absolutely no control over it. He is just like the insane man that we declare 'not-guilty' in our own judicial system.

Therefore, I submit that Calvinism is the system guilty of exalting the view of man all the while lessoning the view of God by making Him ultimately responsible for the unbelievers rejection of his appeal to be reconciled by declaring that all inherit the "totally depraved/unable" nature from birth.

Actually, it gives most glory to God, as NONE of us deserve or are able to even get saved apart from the Lord takem compassion and pity on us and sending us the Grace and means to secure us "in Christ!"

God ALWAYS initiated the salvation process, as he sought out Adam/Eve, selected out Abraham, chose isreal, chose Apostles etc, so its ALL of Him in the salvation process!

 

[Skandelon]

JF, sorry, please go back and edit the quotes in your post to correctly reflect what words belong to you and me and then I can reply...

 

[JesusFan]

Actually, what is said is that non Cals tend NOT to see how we were ruined spiritually by the Fall, that we are indeed dead in our sin natures, and simple unable to respondand come to God in and by ourselves!

Consider the "insanity defense" in our judicial system. What is it based upon? It's the concept that a man who is born insane (i.e. uncontrollable chemical make up of his brain, etc) is not really responsible for his actions and thus is not really "guilty" though he may need to be locked away for treatment and care. Compare this with someone clearly rational and sane individual who commits a pre-meditated crime.
Now, which of these two criminals is worse? The one born unable to do anything except commit crimes because of his inherent illness or the one born normal who chooses to commit his crimes?

According to our judicial system, and that of scripture, the worse individual is the latter, not the former, right? That is why the insane aren't deemed 'guilty' after all.

Now, compare the Calvinist view of the natural/unbelieving man and the non-Calvinist view of the same:


Quote:
The Calvinist view has them born unable to willingly do anything except sin and reject any appeal to be reconciled to God, much like the insane. You may call him "responsible" but ultimately the reason he doesn't believe is because God didn't elect him and provide what was needed for him to choose otherwise.

We believe that man is found to be "in Adam" as a result of the fall, as Adam represented all of us before God as head of human race, and we were accounted as being in him and thus sharing in his sin before God and the judgement pronounced against him for sinning by God!

We are either reprsented by our 'head' of adam, who ALL are physical born into "his likeness' as sinners by nature, and spiritually dead before God, while all those reborn are in "likeness" of Christ, and spiritually reborn again!

Quote:
Quote:

On the other hand, the non-Calvinist view of the unbeliever is more like the rational, sane criminal who commits the pre-meditated crime. God provided all that he needed to see, hear, and understand and thus he stands without a single excuse. God loves him, didn't want him to perish, made a sincere appeal to be reconciled and he rationally considered the truth and chose to trade it in for lies. He stands condemned for no other reason except that he chose to rebel and turn his back on an all loving, benevolent, and long-suffering Father.

Actually, more akin to humans being theones that will allow/permit God to be able to save us,, as he sends his message and provides jesus death to us, but we will decide IF we will alow God to apply His desired salvation to us!

its as if we are rebelling against the biblical concepts of us being SINNERS and unable to do ANYTHING other than totally relying upon the Grace and Will of God to save us!

Undercuts the Soveireingty of God when you have it that he is 'stuck" waiting to see if we will decide to receive reject jesus, as that we allow him to save us when we invite Him in... leaves God as sending jesus to die on our behalf, but not really sure if ANY will take Him up on His offer!

Thus, the view of the unbelieving man in the non-Calvinistic system is MUCH worse. You feel sorry for the man in the Calvinistic system because he couldn't help it. He wasn't chosen or regenerated. You pity him, but his rebellion is justified to some extent because he had absolutely no control over it. He is just like the insane man that we declare 'not-guilty' in our own judicial system.


Quote:
Therefore, I submit that Calvinism is the system guilty of exalting the view of man all the while lessoning the view of God by making Him ultimately responsible for the unbelievers rejection of his appeal to be reconciled by declaring that all inherit the "totally depraved/unable" nature from birth.

Actually, it gives most glory to God, as NONE of us deserve or are able to even get saved apart from the Lord takem compassion and pity on us and sending us the Grace and means to secure us "in Christ!"

God ALWAYS initiated the salvation process, as he sought out Adam/Eve, selected out Abraham, chose isreal, chose Apostles etc, so its ALL of Him in the salvation process!

MINE answers are in the quotes, yours in the "other!"

 

[Skandelon]

MINE answers are in the quotes, yours in the "other!"

Actually, they are not... I give up. :wavey:

 

[quantumfaith]

Let me be profound in responding to the OP.....NO

 

[JesusFan]

Actually, they are not... I give up. :wavey:

Flip side questrion might be this though:

Does a non cal Sotierology in ANY way reduce down God as being the Lord and Soverieign in His dealings with man?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Therefore, I submit that Calvinism is the system guilty of exalting the view of man all the while lessoning the view of God by making Him ultimately responsible for the unbelievers rejection of his appeal to be reconciled by declaring that all inherit the "totally depraved/unable" nature from birth.[/B]

Are you REALLY serious with this? :tongue3:

 

[preacher4truth]

It's been demonstrated on the BB manifold times that non-cals have an inflated and exalted view of man and mans alleged "goodness." This has been proven by non-cals themselves on this board time and again.

Such a view stands against multiple Scriptural passages and its (God's) indictment upon lost man. Moreover, this erroneous view fails to look upon man through Gods lens.

Reformed theology, on the other hand, holds a Scriptural view of lost man and glorifies the nature of God in a more biblically concise manner.

 

[preacher4truth]

Are you REALLY serious with this? :tongue3:

Yes EWF. It's a "serious" runon sentence filled with fallacy and is a blatantly false misrepresentation of the cal brethren. Even if his false view of cals were correct, it in no way exalts man to begin with! :laugh:

 

[quantumfaith]

It's been demonstrated on the BB manifold times that non-cals have an inflated and exalted view of man and mans alleged "goodness." This has been proven by non-cals themselves on this board time and again.

Such a view stands against multiple Scriptural passages and its (God's) indictment upon lost man. Moreover, this erroneous view fails to look upon man through Gods lens.

Reformed theology, on the other hand, holds a Scriptural view of lost man and glorifies the nature of God in a more biblically concise manner.

It has ONLY been demonstrated in your mind and some who share your positions. That is all. This view is not erroneous, it does not stand against scripture. Reformed theology is but another view of mankind on the message and revelation of God. Calvinism is NOT the gospel. It may echo the gospel, it may seek to explain the Gospel, but it is not THE gospel, otherwise Jesus would have said, go into the world and preach calvinism.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

no Calvinist should even bother with this.:tongue3:

 

[preacher4truth]

no Calvinist should even bother with this.:tongue3:

Amen!

:thumbsup:

 

[12strings]

I'm not sure either of these descriptions of the 2 views are accurate:

The Calvinist view has them born unable to willingly do anything except sin and reject any appeal to be reconciled to God, much like the insane. You may call him "responsible" but ultimately the reason he doesn't believe is because God didn't elect him and provide what was needed for him to choose otherwise.

This explanation excludes the REASON that men are born unable to do anything but sin, that is, Adam's original sin that passed on the sin nature to the rest of us.

On the other hand, the non-Calvinist view of the unbeliever is more like the rational, sane criminal who commits the pre-meditated crime. God provided all that he needed to see, hear, and understand and thus he stands without a single excuse. God loves him, didn't want him to perish, made a sincere appeal to be reconciled and he rationally considered the truth and chose to trade it in for lies. He stands condemned for no other reason except that he chose to rebel and turn his back on an all loving, benevolent, and long-suffering Father.

Again, even non-calvinist accept that all people today reject God because of their inborn sin nature. So even most non-cals would not say that each individual person is a blank slate with the ability to choose good or evil.
John Wesley (Arminian) knew that no one could come to God on their own, but believe that God granted prevenient grace to all people that gave them the initial ability to respond to the gospel, and then some chose to respond to that grace.

 

[Iconoclast]

It's been demonstrated on the BB manifold times that non-cals have an inflated and exalted view of man and mans alleged "goodness." This has been proven by non-cals themselves on this board time and again.

Such a view stands against multiple Scriptural passages and its (God's) indictment upon lost man.
Reformed theology, on the other hand, holds a Scriptural view of lost man and glorifies the nature of God in a more biblically concise manner.

:thumbs::thumbs:...........

 

[convicted1]

In no way could I have saved myself. When God called me, it was I who had to respond. When He called out to me in my sinful life, I rejected His call for years, because I didn't want to give up my life. One day, He called out to me, and I came to the realization of where my life was taking me to. I then began searching after Him, seeking His mercy and Grace. He reached down and pull me away from the gates of hell, and saved my soul. My life, I owe to Him!!!

 

[quantumfaith]

In no way could I have saved myself. When God called me, it was I who had to respond. When He called out to me in my sinful life, I rejected His call for years, because I didn't want to give up my life. One day, He called out to me, and I came to the realization of where my life was taking me to. I then began searching after Him, seeking His mercy and Grace. He reached down and pull me away from the gates of hell, and saved my soul. My life, I owe to Him!!!

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Skandelon]

This explanation excludes the REASON that men are born unable to do anything but sin, that is, Adam's original sin that passed on the sin nature to the rest of us.

I didn't exclude it...just didn't address it. Not every aspect of the doctrine must be addressed for the point to be made. In the Calvinistic system, God declared that the punishment for all mankind due to the fall was for every man to be born totally unable to do anything except reject God's appeal, which I argued is actually a HIGHER and EXALTED view of man because it gives man an excuse (like that of those who are insane, as explained in the OP).

The non-Cals view of man is much less exalted because man doesn't have any excuse. Why? Because God has given them all they need and they rejected it, making their rebellion fully and totally their fault and not the result of God's punishment for something Adam did thousands of years before they were even born.

No one to this point in the thread have addressed the merits of this argument.

Again, even non-calvinist accept that all people today reject God because of their inborn sin nature.

Of course we do, that is what I just said. The difference is the issue of total inability and irresistibility of God's gracious provisions.

John Wesley (Arminian) knew that no one could come to God on their own, but believe that God granted prevenient grace to all people that gave them the initial ability to respond to the gospel, and then some chose to respond to that grace.

Yes, I know. That is what I said. They are all without excuse because of the Grace God provided making them able to come to faith, thus it is totally their own fault for resisting this gracious provision. Calvinists don't believe God has given all that is needed for men to be reconciled, thus they have an excuse for not coming. Therefore, the Calvinist view of man is exalted above our view of man.

 

[JesusFan]

I'm not sure either of these descriptions of the 2 views are accurate:

This explanation excludes the REASON that men are born unable to do anything but sin, that is, Adam's original sin that passed on the sin nature to the rest of us.

MANY non cals here on the BB seem to have a hard time understanding just HOW devestating the fall of Adam was to mankind!

We were ALL seen by God as being now found "IN Adam", and as such, inherited His sin nature, and the curse of God pronounced on him...

Namely, that ALL of us would experience BOTH a physical and spiritual death!

Again, even non-calvinist accept that all people today reject God because of their inborn sin nature. So even most non-cals would not say that each individual person is a blank slate with the ability to choose good or evil.
John Wesley (Arminian) knew that no one could come to God on their own, but believe that God granted prevenient grace to all people that gave them the initial ability to respond to the gospel, and then some chose to respond to that grace.

Because MANY here seem to fail to understand the fall, and the results of inheriting sin nature/original Sin, and depravity of man!

MANY refuse to even acknowledge that God needs to even provide ANY additional Grace appluied towards us as in Cal/Arm theologies, as we can still freely accept/reject jesus ourselves!

 

[Tom Bryant]

Straw men always lead to awful conclusions. The idea that non-Calvinists exalt men is one of them.

Another straw man is that Calvinists negate man's responsibility. Both are wrong. Believing either, just leads to talking at each other and tryng to win debating points.