Critiquing: Should I Stick with My Decision if I Prayed About It Beforehand?

July 1, 2024 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

Prayer and Decisions — Sovereign Will — Success and Failure — Trust in God — Misunderstanding Calling

---

Introduction

The content titled “Should I Stick with My Decision if I Prayed About It Beforehand?” explores whether one should maintain a decision made after prayer if the outcome is unfavorable, and how to discern if God is calling someone to a specific action. This critique aims to evaluate the logical coherence of the arguments presented, focusing on potential logical inconsistencies, unsubstantiated claims, and cognitive biases.

1. Prayer and Decisions

Logical Coherence

The content argues that praying about a decision does not guarantee a favorable outcome and that decisions should be based on wisdom and counsel rather than expecting a direct answer from God.

Analysis

Logical Inconsistency: The content claims that decisions should be made using wisdom and counsel within the framework of God’s moral will, yet it simultaneously suggests that outcomes are uncertain and may be part of God’s sovereign purpose. The God portrayed is unable to provide clear, unequivocal guidance.

“Praying about something doesn’t guarantee that whatever you choose as a result of praying about it is going to work out the way you have in mind.”

Cognitive Bias: The explanation reflects a confirmation bias by emphasizing that unfavorable outcomes may still align with God’s sovereign purpose, which conveniently justifies any result without offering a concrete method to evaluate the decision’s alignment with divine will.

“We don’t know what God’s sovereign purposes are in the individual things in our life.”

2. Sovereign Will and Human Decisions

Logical Coherence

The content emphasizes that God’s sovereign will is unknowable and that humans must make decisions within the moral framework provided by scripture.

Analysis

Unsubstantiated Claim: The assertion that God’s sovereign purposes are hidden and unknowable lacks concrete evidence and relies heavily on the assumption that any outcome, whether favorable or not, serves a higher purpose. This renders incoherent the notion that Christians should intentionally do everything to the glory of God while not knowing what will glorify God.

“We don’t know what God’s sovereign purposes are. This is the man behind the curtain, so to speak.”

(This notion of a man behind the curtain is a useful analogy for the hiddenness of God.)

Ambiguity: The content uses ambiguous language to describe God’s will, making it difficult to discern a clear, actionable guideline for decision-making beyond general moral principles.

“Within certain parameters, those parameters are God’s moral will.”

3. Success and Failure in Decision-Making

Logical Coherence

The content suggests that success and failure are both part of the divine process and that individuals should trust God regardless of the outcome.

Analysis

Circular Reasoning: The argument that failure might be part of God’s plan uses circular reasoning, as it presupposes that any outcome fits into a divine plan without providing a way to verify this claim.

“It might be that in God on his sovereign purpose… his sovereign purpose is for us to go through the process and then get frustrated.”

Hasty Generalization: The content generalizes personal anecdotes and experiences to make broad claims about the nature of divine interaction and human decision-making without robust evidence.

“There is no guarantee that good decisions will have a good ending. Just think of relationships and marriages and things like that.”

Within this system of reasoning, there is no possible clear message from God to Christians apart from hermeneutical assessments of the Bible, which themselves are often debated among Christians.

4. Trust in God Despite Outcomes

Logical Coherence

The content emphasizes trusting in God despite unfavorable outcomes, suggesting that adverse events may lead to personal growth and alignment with divine intentions.

Analysis

Confirmation Bias: The explanation supports a confirmation bias by interpreting negative outcomes as potentially more beneficial than successes. This aligns with the belief that all experiences contribute to spiritual growth, rendering an assessment of the voice of God completely untestable.

“It generally always is better for you as a human being because that’s when we’re shaped to become like Christ.”

Lack of Empirical Evidence: The content lacks empirical evidence to support the claim that negative outcomes are inherently more beneficial or aligned with divine purposes. There is no possible way to test this.

“When things start going bad, that’s when you make another wise decision.”

5. Misunderstanding of Divine Calling

Logical Coherence

The content critiques the common understanding of divine calling, arguing that many Christians misinterpret signs and signals as direct communication from God.

Analysis

Equivocation Fallacy: The term “calling” is used ambiguously, first to describe a clear divine instruction and later to denote one’s current life situation or vocation, without clearly distinguishing between these uses.

“If you’re not sure that he’s calling you, then he’s not calling you.”

Circular Reasoning: The argument that God’s will is always clear and unambiguous when He intends to communicate presupposes that any lack of clarity means no divine communication occurred, without considering alternative explanations.

“If God wants to say something, he says it, and he says it without ambiguity.”

Examples of God speaking unambiguously to Christians would be invaluable in assessing the claims made here.

Conclusion

The content presents several theological arguments that contain logical inconsistencies, unsubstantiated claims, and cognitive biases. The reliance on ambiguous language and fallacious reasoning undermines the logical coherence of the arguments. A thorough critique from a critical perspective reveals these flaws and emphasizes the need for clearer, substantiated arguments in theological discourse.

---

Feel free to discuss these arguments further in the comments section!