Critiquing: Could God Reach a Second-Century Shinto Monk Who Desired Redemption?

April 17, 2023 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

Shinto Monk Redemption — God’s Reach — Exclusivism vs. Inclusivism — Faith Requirements — Salvation Consistency

---

Introduction

The content discusses whether God could reach a second-century Shinto monk who desired redemption and whether it is possible for someone to put their faith in Jesus for salvation but not have eternal life because they were not chosen. The discussion is led by Amy Hall and Greg Cokol from the Stand to Reason podcast.

Logical Coherence Analysis

Claims and Unsubstantiated Statements

1. Claim: “God can reach him [the Shinto monk].” This assertion is presented without evidence, making it an unsubstantiated claim. The content fails to provide a rational basis or method by which this reaching would occur, thus requiring substantiation to be logically coherent.
2. Claim: “A person seeking God on God’s terms, not on his terms, seeking redemption.” This statement implies a very specific theological framework without providing justification or evidence that this is the only valid framework. It assumes a universal truth that must be substantiated.
3. Claim: “There are lots of examples of people in extreme circumstances like that in modern times.” This generalization lacks specific examples or data, making it another unsubstantiated claim that should be supported by verifiable instances.

Logical Inconsistencies

1. Inclusivism vs. Exclusivism: The content discusses the notion that people can be saved by Christ apart from faith in Christ (inclusivism) but then dismisses this idea by asserting that “trust in Christ explicitly is required.” This contradiction between inclusivism and exclusivism is not resolved, creating a logical inconsistency.
2. Requirement for Faith in Christ: The statement “trusting in Christ is required for salvation” is presented as a uniform truth. However, it conflicts with the idea that some people might be saved without explicit knowledge of Christ, as noted in the mention of Old Testament believers being justified without knowledge of Christ. This creates a logical tension between historical religious practices and contemporary theological claims.

Cognitive Biases

1. Confirmation Bias: The speakers seem to favor evidence and interpretations that support their pre-existing beliefs about the necessity of explicit faith in Christ. For example, they cite the New Testament and specific theological interpretations while dismissing other perspectives without sufficient consideration.
2. Anchoring Bias: The content heavily relies on specific interpretations of biblical texts and theological frameworks, potentially ignoring broader contexts or alternative interpretations. This can lead to a biased and narrow view of the issue at hand.

Obligation to Substantiate Claims

Many claims made in the content are presented without adequate evidence or logical justification. For instance:

• “God can reach him [the Shinto monk].”
• “God provided the particular information that was necessary for their redemption, which is the gospel.”

These assertions require substantiation, as they involve significant theological and metaphysical claims that are not self-evident. The speakers have a responsibility to provide evidence or rational arguments to support these statements to maintain logical coherence.

Testing Alleged Promises

The content makes various promises about God’s actions and requirements for salvation. To test these promises, one could:

• Examine historical and contemporary accounts of individuals claiming to have been reached by God without explicit knowledge of Christ.
• Investigate theological and philosophical arguments for and against the necessity of explicit faith in Christ for salvation.

These methods would help determine the validity of the content’s claims and ensure that beliefs are proportionate to the available evidence.

Degree of Belief and Evidence

The degree of belief in any claim should be proportional to the evidence supporting it. The content often presents claims as definitive truths without providing sufficient evidence. For instance:

• The assertion that “trusting in Christ explicitly is required for salvation” should be supported by robust theological and philosophical arguments, as well as empirical evidence if available.

By mapping one’s degree of belief to the degree of evidence, individuals can maintain logical coherence and avoid accepting claims without sufficient justification.

Conclusion

The content presented in “Could God Reach a Second-Century Shinto Monk Who Desired Redemption?” contains several logical inconsistencies, unsubstantiated claims, and cognitive biases. The discussion fails to provide adequate evidence or rational justification for many of its assertions, undermining its logical coherence. A thorough examination of the claims, along with an obligation to substantiate them, is essential for maintaining logical consistency and ensuring that beliefs are aligned with the available evidence.

---

I invite you to discuss these arguments further in the comments section.