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

[Robert Snow]

Are you saying God has not determined everything? pray is moot???

God has determined how things will work out in the end, but He has not determined every decision that will be made until then.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

God has determined how things will work out in the end, but He has not determined every decision that will be made until then.

Oh....hows that work & who does that?

 

[mandym]

God has determined how things will work out in the end, but He has not determined every decision that will be made until then.

Do you have chapter and verse for this?

 

[Skandelon]

How about we address the subject of the OP regarding which "camp" actually exalts the view of man?

Is it the view which teaches men are born unable to willingly believe and thus have a excuse for why they don't believe (much like the insanity defense described in the OP), or those who are born able to believe because God has provided a clear, understandable revelation of Himself so they stand without any excuse for their unbelief? Which view of man is worse and why?

 

[Iconoclast]

God has determined how things will work out in the end, but He has not determined every decision that will be made until then.

Robert,
We plan and purpose what we will, but it never can or never will alter anything that God has ordained to come to pass.

Proverbs 21

1The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will.

Luke 22:22
And truly the Son of man goeth, as it was determined: but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed!

Judas did what he wanted to do....and yet God was not at all surprised by it.
God has in His providence so ordered all events in a complete way,that there is no thing that goes unnoticed , or not accounted for.

Every idle word will be accounted for.

 

[Benjamin]

How about we address the subject of the OP regarding which "camp" actually exalts the view of man?

Is it the view which 1) teaches men are born unable to willingly believe and thus have a excuse for why they don't believe (much like the insanity defense described in the OP), or 2) those who are born able to believe because God has provided a clear, understandable revelation of Himself so they stand without any excuse for their unbelief? Which view of man is worse and why?

#2, no excuses here.

 

[Skandelon]

#2, no excuses here.

:thumbsup: Exactly, those who believe men are born unable to willingly believe because of God's choice actually exalt the view of man by giving them a really good excuse for their unbelief. In our view, they are free to believe because God has giving them everything they need to understand and accept the gracious appeal of reconciliation. Thus, they are without any excuse and cannot in anyway be exalted.

 

[quantumfaith]

Oh....hows that work & who does that?

Absolute Determinism, one of the rare qualities that some calvinists and naturalists share. I have often heard that politics makes strange bedfellows, apparently we can stipulate the same for theologians.

 

[quantumfaith]

Robert,
We plan and purpose what we will, but it never can or never will alter anything that God has ordained to come to pass.

Proverbs 21

1The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will.



Judas did what he wanted to do....and yet God was not at all surprised by it.
God has in His providence so ordered all events in a complete way,that there is no thing that goes unnoticed , or not accounted for.

Every idle word will be accounted for.

Very true Icon, but that does not necessitate that God DECREED everything, every action, every ineteraction etc. No one, sane that is, would deny God's ability or authority to do so. You are also correct that nothing surprises or "catches God unaware".

 

[Robert Snow]

Do you have chapter and verse for this?

I believe if you look at the totality of scripture, and use a little common sense, it is obvious.

Now, if you want to believe that God ordains every action that is committed, that would make Him responsible for sin, which is impossible.

 

[JesusFan]

:thumbsup: Exactly, those who believe men are born unable to willingly believe because of God's choice actually exalt the view of man by giving them a really good excuse for their unbelief. In our view, they are free to believe because God has giving them everything they need to understand and accept the gracious appeal of reconciliation. Thus, they are without any excuse and cannot in anyway be exalted.

just curious, where did you get this cal theology from as regards to Sotierology? Seems this is NOT what I have been taught/read/ and learned from the Bible!

man is born sinners, and as the direct result of The Fall of adam are soiritually dead to the saving efforts of God apart from a direct act on his part to save us...

we can know God is real and exists from conscious and from general revelation of nature, but unable to know God in a personally/saving fashion apart from his divine work/act of Grace in special revelation...

Which apart from Him revealing jesus to us while in our sin condition , cannot even respond to Him and be saved!

We are ALL still accountible to him, NO 'free excuses" before God!

 

[Skandelon]

I know what some Calvinists argue about being "able but not willing" which is why I specifically said, "born unable to willingly believe." That is an accurate a representation of Calvinism.

 

[Alive in Christ]

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

Absolutely NOT!

 

[quantumfaith]

Absolutely NOT!

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Luke2427]

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.

This whole argument rests upon a horrendous premise- that God must judge as men judge.

But for the record, men do murder and steal and rape and commit all kinds of crimes because they are sinners. Yet still our judicial system does not let them off just because they were born sinners.

Do you deny that men are born sinners?

Do you deny that men sin because they are sinners?

Do you rather purport that men are not sinners but they BECOME sinners when they sin??

Because if not, your argument is pointless.

In other words if you believe, as all Christians do, that men since Adam sin because they are sinners, then you know that the reason people murder is because they are sinners. Therefore even YOU have men's judicial systems meting out justice to people who do what they were born to do- sin.

So by your OWN standards God is just is judging men for sinning due to the fact that they are sinners.

In fact our judicial system recognizes that children left to themselves without any moral instruction, without any correctional restraint to their evil passions will most often become the most horrible criminals. The only thing that keeps them from becoming horrible criminals is good parenting and authoritarian restraint throughout their adolescent years.

Yet the judicial system knowing this full well- KNOWING that these adults became murderers because they had no restraint of their sinful passionis in their adolescence- they STILL sentence them to be punished.


So your argument actually PROVES the justice of God in judging the totally depraved and unregenerate masses of man.

Your scenario is actually a good one to SUPPORT Calvinism.

 

[preacher4truth]

This whole argument rests upon a horrendous premise- that God must judge as men judge.

Enough said right there. :thumbsup:

The non-cals/arms are looking through the wrong lens theologically, especially concerning the nature of God (omniscience/omnis/sovereignty) and the nature of lost man (dead, evil, wicked, at warfare with God &c): i.e. they are looking through mans lens, not Gods. They have been told this numerous times and even as of now, they still prove this to be true time and again.

This is the major reason why there is so much fallacy in their premises and theologies.

- Peace

 

[webdog]

In other words if you believe, as all Christians do, that men since Adam sin because they are sinners, then you know that the reason people murder is because they are sinners.

All Christians do not believe this and prior to Augustine most did not.

 

[webdog]

I think it's telling that the Lord tells us to reason together with Him...not attempt to reason from His vantage as some are saying. Sounds real spiritual...but it is quite false.

 

[Iconoclast]

All Christians do not believe this and prior to Augustine most did not.

Webdog,

Not sure what information you have come across that makes you stay on this anti...Augustine crusade /jihad...that you always seen to drag Him into it.
Who said christians believe different prior to that? Are you quoting from some "church fathers'....what is your source of this...you say it alot:type:
Alot of the teaching on sin...comes from the OT...as understood and misunderstood by the first century church.
The explanations in the epistles answer wrong views of OT law...or clarify misunderstandings that were held.
What are you using to base your view on?

 

[preacher4truth]

Here we go with the misuse/misapplication/misinterpretation with no original authorial intent of "let us reason together" from Holy Scriptures via Isaiah 1:18.

webs "interpretation" is not even close to the meaning.

More proof-texting. More error.