It seems like you are saying that man's culpability is grounded in what he knows or is able to and should know. If that is an accurate summation of your position, I would call it Teleological Rebellion (to keep the two-word pattern and acronym). Man is wilfully refusing to bear the image of God to His glory. Whatever else he may do or not do, whether in concert or in conflict with God's ordering of the world, he does none of it as God's chosen regent. This would be quite in keeping with the movement away from broadly cosmological interpretations of the Bible toward those which treat Gods covenant with man as the primary purpose and hermeneutical key.
Just as a Christian may know, say, and do great things and be nothing without love, and some may even have "been enlightened...tasted the heavenly gift, ...shared in the Holy Spirit, tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come" or cast out demons in Christ's name and still not been known by Him or persevere unto life, so there is much that may be known, said, and done without ever approaching the surrendered will of the repentant rebel.
In fact, Jesus castigated the men of His age because they should have known better and were wilfully rejecting what even pagan Ninevites would have readily admitted and what the Queen of Sheeba sought out on less evidence and for less payoff. The assumption is that men can and should know and are culpable, by degrees, for what they reject by hardness of heart. The blindness and deafness is because they hate the light, not because they perceive it to be darkness, in other Words.
Some of the reason for this error has been the preference, hermeneutically, for the epistles over the gospels--ironic for a gospel-centric theology--in Protestant theology. I knew the Romans road before the sermon on the mount or even the Lord's Prayer, and it wasn't until undergrad that I saw James in Paul's "the obedience of faith", in large part because James had been treated like Luther's pejorative, "book of straw", in practice, if not theory.
It seems some these days, as of old, are of Paul and not Apollos, which risks building the house with half the material. The insulation doesn't hold structural load and the block doesn't keep moisture out, nor does the paint regulate temperature or the ceiling bear the weight of fans without the trusses. The code requires all essential elements of construction to be in their proper place and proportion, even if one could make a go of it in a condemnable structure.
It seems like you are saying that man's culpability is grounded in what he knows or is able to and should know. If that is an accurate summation of your position, I would call it Teleological Rebellion (to keep the two-word pattern and acronym). Man is wilfully refusing to bear the image of God to His glory. Whatever else he may do or not do, whether in concert or in conflict with God's ordering of the world, he does none of it as God's chosen regent. This would be quite in keeping with the movement away from broadly cosmological interpretations of the Bible toward those which treat Gods covenant with man as the primary purpose and hermeneutical key.
Just as a Christian may know, say, and do great things and be nothing without love, and some may even have "been enlightened...tasted the heavenly gift, ...shared in the Holy Spirit, tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come" or cast out demons in Christ's name and still not been known by Him or persevere unto life, so there is much that may be known, said, and done without ever approaching the surrendered will of the repentant rebel.
In fact, Jesus castigated the men of His age because they should have known better and were wilfully rejecting what even pagan Ninevites would have readily admitted and what the Queen of Sheeba sought out on less evidence and for less payoff. The assumption is that men can and should know and are culpable, by degrees, for what they reject by hardness of heart. The blindness and deafness is because they hate the light, not because they perceive it to be darkness, in other Words.
Some of the reason for this error has been the preference, hermeneutically, for the epistles over the gospels--ironic for a gospel-centric theology--in Protestant theology. I knew the Romans road before the sermon on the mount or even the Lord's Prayer, and it wasn't until undergrad that I saw James in Paul's "the obedience of faith", in large part because James had been treated like Luther's pejorative, "book of straw", in practice, if not theory.
It seems some these days, as of old, are of Paul and not Apollos, which risks building the house with half the material. The insulation doesn't hold structural load and the block doesn't keep moisture out, nor does the paint regulate temperature or the ceiling bear the weight of fans without the trusses. The code requires all essential elements of construction to be in their proper place and proportion, even if one could make a go of it in a condemnable structure.