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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Particular salvific events are ontologically necessary but not epistemically necessary for salvation.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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