Stephen Monroney's Model Essay

Stephen Moroney had a lot of his own ideas of the different models through the study of psychology. He critiques many models, especially the ones from, Abraham Kuyper, Emil Brunner, and many more with due to respect. According to Abraham Kuyper, his model states that there are two different types of thinkers in the world which are, regenerate and un-regenerated non-christians. Kuyper’s view was that Christians thinkers are characterized in the “abnormalities” group, believing the current state of the world is abnormal, fallen and in need of renewal; non-Christians are characterized in the “normalists” group, believing the world at present is normal and not in need of radical renewal. Between these two groups there are “antithesis,” a radical disagreement about God and Scripture which produces concomitant disagreement throughout the rest of life. Kuyper also stated that regenerated thinkers and ungenerated thinkers were primarily different in their outlooks; they would disagree with their thinking with each other. On the other hand Stephen …show more content…
He was a man born in Winterthur, Switzerland in 1889. His model was based on the non-neutrality of reason; all thinking is faithful or sinful. He also like the idea of Kuypers model, that the Noetic effects of sin, which is a phenomenon in which sin distorts human thinking, is not consistent with what he is saying. Brunner maintained “Scientific Neutrality” meaning that there is no conflict between christians and non-christians concerning the subjects in school and explains the variability of the noetic effects of sin on different areas of the human knowledge. Monroney first starts by saying that Brunner’s model avoids the principle of antithesis and view of human thinking. He also states that Brunner is ignoring the reality of sin lies upon the thinking of many people in the world. Brunner agrees mainly with Kuyper’s noetic effects on sin model and leaves it how it