Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Particular salvific events are ontologically necessary bu... — Carmelics
    Home/Religious Experience
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Particular salvific events are ontologically necessary but not epistemically necessary for salvation.

    Religious Experience
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Salvation cannot occur without certain salvific events having taken place (ontological necessity).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.One need not know about those salvific events in order to be saved or liberated (no epistemic necessity).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Alvin Plantinga's reformed epistemology holds that salvific belief requires properly functioning cognitive faculties directed at truth, not mere causal proximity to events.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If epistemic access to salvific events is unnecessary, the mechanism by which those events produce salvation becomes causally opaque and theologically incoherent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A causally efficacious event that operates independently of any epistemic relation to its beneficiaries resembles magic more than rational soteriology.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Aquinas held in Summa Theologiae that explicit faith in Christ became soteriologically necessary after the Incarnation, collapsing the ontological/epistemic distinction post-revelation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If particular salvific events are ontologically necessary, then the scope and character of those events must constrain who can be saved, making epistemic access a derivative necessity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Religious Experience

    Notable Defenders

    David SilvercontemporarySilver 2001, 11
    J.L. SchellenbergcontemporarySchellenberg 2000, 213
    John HickcontemporaryHick 1980, 44; Hick 1997a, 287
    Kenneth Einar HimmacontemporaryReferenced as author of the moral argument against exclusivism
    Philip QuinncontemporaryQuinn 2000, 242
    Philip QuinncontemporaryQuinn 2001, 57–80; 2002, 533–537; 2005a, 136–139
    William AlstoncontemporaryReferenced by Quinn as holding the pre-Kantian 'sit tight' position on religious exclusivism
    William HaskercontemporaryHasker 2008

    Related

    A causally efficacious event that operates independently of any epistemic relati...Alvin Plantinga's reformed epistemology holds that salvific belief requires prop...Aquinas held in Summa Theologiae that explicit faith in Christ became soteriolog...If epistemic access to salvific events is unnecessary, the mechanism by which th...
    +3 moreShow less
    If particular salvific events are ontologically necessary, then the scope and ch...One need not know about those salvific events in order to be saved or liberated ...

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: religious-pluralism
    View source passageHide passage
    But what of those “adults” who die having never been aware of the salvific conditions of the one true religion? Is it not clearly unjust for exclusivists to claim that they cannot spend eternity with God because they have not met the criteria for salvation stipulated by this religion? For salvific inclusivists, the answer is yes. Like exclusivists, inclusivists believe that eternal existence in God’s presence is only possible because of the salvific provisions noted in the one true religion. How
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Salvation cannot occur without certain salvific events having taken place (ontol...

    Similar

    Salvation cannot occur without certain salvific events having taken pl...86%One need not know about those salvific events in order to be saved or ...86%The criteria for salvation specified by that perspective are ontologic...83%The criteria for salvation specified by that perspective are epistemol...81%
    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit