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

June 17, 2024 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

Reformed Christian — Double Predestination — Non-Believers — Faith and Works — Evangelism

---

Introduction

The content in this document, titled What Should I Say to a Reformed Christian Who Dismisses Many Non-Believers as Lost Causes?, explores questions regarding double predestination, the fate of non-believers, and the relationship between faith and works for salvation. Amy Hall and Greg Koukl discuss these issues through a theological lens, aiming to provide clarity on Reformed theology’s stance and to offer responses to common concerns.

Outline of Key Points and Logical Coherence

1. Understanding Double Predestination

Claim:

“The idea is if God chooses some people to be saved as a matter of His sovereign grace, and not judge them the way they deserve, but allows others to simply perish and be judged for their sins, which is a judgment they do deserve, then God has predestined each group, that’s double predestination, which sounds cruel regarding God.”

Explanation and Critique: The explanation of double predestination asserts that God predestines some for salvation and others for damnation based on His sovereign grace. This concept raises ethical concerns about the nature of divine justice and fairness. The assertion that God allows some to perish while saving others, despite all deserving judgment, presents a logical inconsistency when juxtaposed with the concept of an all-loving deity. The notion that predestination sounds cruel reflects a moral contradiction in the characterization of God’s nature.

2. Responding to Non-Believers as Lost Causes

Claim:

“We don’t know who the elect are. Obviously, there was a time when he wasn’t saved. And what if someone said, well, he’s a lost cause because he’s not elect. You don’t know if they’re elect or not until the end of their life when you see if they have believed or they have not believed. And we don’t have that information.”

Explanation and Critique: This argument highlights the uncertainty regarding who is considered “elect” and criticizes dismissing individuals as lost causes. The claim logically implies that any individual could potentially be saved, which conflicts with the earlier assertion that some are predestined to damnation. This cognitive dissonance undermines the internal consistency of the argument.

3. Faith Plus Works for Salvation

Claim:

“I’ve often been told that certain groups believe in faith plus works for their salvation as opposed to faith alone, such as Roman Catholics.”

Explanation and Critique: The content discusses differing views on salvation, particularly contrasting faith alone with faith plus works. The critique here is that such discussions often fail to acknowledge the necessity of substantiating claims about doctrinal accuracy. The assertion that faith plus works is contrary to true salvation must be supported by more than theological interpretation; it requires empirical evidence of its practical effects, which is lacking.

4. Evangelism and Preaching the Gospel

Claim:

“We’re called to preach the gospel because that is the means by which God saves people. That’s the means by which he opens their eyes. That’s the means by which they are saved.”

Explanation and Critique: The content asserts the necessity of evangelism regardless of one’s perceived elect status. This is a practical approach that avoids the pitfall of assuming knowledge about divine election. However, it overlooks the potential psychological and social impact on individuals constantly subjected to evangelistic efforts, which can be viewed as coercive or intrusive. The lack of consideration for these factors reveals a bias towards a single theological perspective.

Identified Logical Inconsistencies and Fallacies

1. Moral Contradiction:

The concept of a loving deity predestining individuals to damnation conflicts with common ethical understandings of love and justice. This creates a moral contradiction that the content fails to resolve.

2. Cognitive Dissonance:

The simultaneous assertion that we do not know who is elect and the claim that some are predestined for damnation create a cognitive dissonance. This inconsistency undermines the logical foundation of the argument.

3. Bias Towards a Single Perspective:

The content exhibits a bias towards Reformed theology, particularly in its dismissal of other doctrinal interpretations (e.g., faith plus works). This limits the scope of the discussion and disregards the validity of other viewpoints.

4. Unsubstantiated Claims:

Claims about doctrinal accuracy and the necessity of certain theological views are not substantiated with empirical evidence. The obligation to substantiate these claims is crucial for a logically coherent argument.

Methods to Test Alleged Promises of God

To critically evaluate the promises of God mentioned, potential methods could include:

1. Empirical Observation: Analyzing historical and contemporary instances where individuals claim divine intervention or fulfillment of promises.
2. Psychological Analysis: Investigating the psychological impact and outcomes of belief in divine promises on individuals’ well-being and behavior.
3. Sociological Studies: Conducting studies on communities with strong beliefs in divine promises to assess social cohesion, moral behavior, and overall quality of life.

Mapping Belief to Evidence

It is essential to align one’s degree of belief with the degree of available evidence. Theological claims should be critically examined, and beliefs should be adjusted according to the strength and reliability of supporting evidence. This approach promotes intellectual honesty and logical coherence in evaluating religious content.

---

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