Non-Calvinists teach that unbelieving men reject God despite God's love and gracious provisions, making those who remain in unbelief truly horrible, deserving of condemnation and inexcusable for their rebellion. Calvinists, on the other hand, teach that unbelievers are unbelievers because God doesn't really 'love' them or desire them to come to faith thus He refuses to grant them faith. This gives unbelievers the perfect excuse for their unbelief. What better excuse is there for an unbeliever than, "God didn't grant me faith?" So, which is worse? Someone who has everything they need to believe but chooses not to do...who rebells despite God's loving provisions and gracious invitation, ORRRR someone who rebells because he was born that way and wasn't provided all that was needed to believe? The first is obviously much worse than the second, yet Calvinists are constantly accusing non-Calvinists of having too high of a view of man??? It seems as if they are the ones elevating the view of man above what scriptures actually teach.