Critiquing: What Should I Say to a Reformed Christian Who Dismisses Many Non-Believers as Lost Causes?

June 13, 2024 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

Counterarguments — Double Predestination — Faith and Works — Sanctification Misconceptions — Overwhelming Challenges

---

Introduction

This critique examines the logical coherence of the content “What Should I Say to a Reformed Christian Who Dismisses Many Non-Believers as Lost Causes?” from June 13, 2024. The content involves discussing approaches to double predestination, the relationship between faith and works for salvation, and motivating Christians to engage with cultural and ideological challenges.

---

Logical Inconsistencies

Double Predestination and Lost Causes

The content begins by addressing the issue of double predestination and the dismissal of non-believers as lost causes. The hosts argue against this perspective, suggesting a more proactive engagement with non-believers. However, the argument lacks a clear rationale against the theological foundation of double predestination itself. The content fails to address why the belief in double predestination is logically inconsistent or morally problematic.

“The let go and let God mentality is actually a faulty understanding of sanctification. It goes back to the 19th century holiness movement, the Keswick movement out of England.”

Faith and Works for Salvation

The hosts touch on the debate about whether faith alone or faith plus works leads to salvation. They argue that faith is sufficient but acknowledge that some believe in the necessity of works. The content does not adequately address the potential contradictions or the theological implications of combining faith and works. This creates ambiguity in their stance, undermining the logical coherence of their position.

“Can someone who believes they need faith plus works for salvation still be saved by their faith?”

---

Cognitive Biases and Logical Fallacies

Confirmation Bias

Throughout the discussion, the hosts demonstrate confirmation bias by selectively presenting information that supports their viewpoints while disregarding opposing arguments. This bias undermines the objectivity and logical soundness of their arguments.

“We are encouraging people to press on and to strive hard after the Lord and seek his face.”

Appeal to Authority

The hosts frequently appeal to religious authorities and texts to support their arguments without providing independent logical reasoning. This reliance on authority can weaken the logical structure of their arguments, making them less persuasive to an audience that does not share the same beliefs.

“And so I take from that that we have a responsibility, and this is where I have kind of conjured this phrase 100% God, 100% man, that God is responsible for 100% of his side. It’s all God, but it’s also all to me.”

---

Unsubstantiated and Dubious Claims

The content includes several claims that are both unsubstantiated and dubious, highlighting the obligation to substantiate all claims to maintain logical coherence and credibility.

“Well, if you’re letting go and letting God, why is it God doing anything in your life? You know, so that might be what’s going on here.”

“The church is filled with Christians like that. And you can pray for a person like that.”

These statements lack empirical support and rely heavily on anecdotal evidence, which diminishes their persuasive power.

---

Testing Alleged Promises

To critically evaluate the content’s claims, it is crucial to outline potential methods to test any alleged promises of God mentioned.

1. Empirical Observation: Observe and record instances where individuals claim divine intervention or fulfillment of God’s promises, and compare these instances with control groups not engaging in similar religious practices.
2. Longitudinal Studies: Conduct long-term studies tracking the life outcomes of individuals who follow specific religious practices versus those who do not, assessing differences in well-being, success, and fulfillment of religious promises.
3. Psychological Assessments: Use psychological tools to evaluate the impact of religious beliefs on individual behavior and mental health, analyzing whether the belief in divine promises correlates with measurable improvements.

---

Mapping Beliefs to Evidence

It is essential to map one’s degree of belief to the degree of the available evidence. This principle emphasizes the need for proportionate belief based on the strength of evidence, aligning with critical thinking and logical analysis.

“So, if you’re getting upset at people for not being upset enough about things, well, maybe you’re expecting things that are unreasonable or that we shouldn’t take on.”

This statement underscores the importance of aligning beliefs with realistic and evidence-based expectations.

---

Conclusion

The content reviewed displays several logical inconsistencies, cognitive biases, and unsubstantiated claims. To improve logical coherence, it is crucial to provide clear rationales, avoid reliance on authority, substantiate all claims, and align beliefs with the available evidence. By addressing these issues, the arguments presented can become more robust and persuasive.

---

Feel free to discuss the arguments further in the comments section.