Critiquing: Am I at Risk of Losing My Salvation?

April 3, 2023 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

Salvation risk — Repentance and sin — Grace foundation — Sinful struggle — Holy Spirit’s role

---

Introduction

The content under evaluation, “Am I at Risk of Losing My Salvation?” from the #STRask – Stand to Reason podcast dated April 3, 2023, raises important questions about repentance, sin, and salvation. The hosts, Amy Hall and Greg Cokel, respond to a question about the potential loss of salvation due to ongoing sin despite daily repentance. This critique will address logical inconsistencies, unsubstantiated claims, and cognitive biases within the content, while emphasizing the necessity of aligning belief with evidence.

Structure of Argument

1. Theological Premise: The content begins with the theological assertion that daily repentance is necessary for Christians due to their inherent sinful nature. “I repent daily because I sin daily, and I sin a whole lot more than I repent from” reflects a belief in perpetual sinfulness and the continuous need for repentance.
2. Grace and Salvation: A key argument is that salvation is secure through grace, regardless of continuous sin. “We don’t have to worry about the fact that we’re sinful people when we’re saved by grace” emphasizes a foundational belief in unmerited salvation.
3. Role of the Holy Spirit: The content discusses the Holy Spirit’s role in aiding Christians to live holy lives and overcome sin. “We seek to live holy lives and we always have the spirit helping us to do that” suggests a partnership between human effort and divine assistance.
4. Nature of Eating Disorders: The content questions whether eating disorders constitute sin, given their mental and emotional nature. “Eating disorders, characteristically are considered mental, emotional problems… they’re disorders of the mind, of the soul that compel certain behavior and they’re not easy to deal with.”
5. Eternal Security: Finally, the content argues that sin does not jeopardize salvation, referencing the efficacy of Jesus’ sacrifice. “If Jesus’ blood is there to cancel out sin, how can sin cancel out Jesus’ blood?” underscores the belief in the permanence of salvation.

Logical Inconsistencies

1. Contradiction in Sin and Grace: The assertion that Christians are perpetually sinful yet secure in grace presents a contradiction. If continuous sin does not endanger salvation, the need for daily repentance appears redundant. The claim, “We don’t have to worry about the fact that we’re sinful people when we’re saved by grace” conflicts with the ongoing emphasis on repentance.
2. Inconsistent Standards: The content asserts that physical health issues do not affect one’s status as a temple of the Holy Spirit. “Paul is not talking about our body’s physical status, it’s talking about our body’s moral status.” This argument, however, selectively interprets scripture to fit a particular theological view, ignoring other interpretations that might emphasize bodily stewardship.

Cognitive Biases

1. Confirmation Bias: The content selectively uses theological sources to support pre-existing beliefs about salvation and grace. The frequent citation of scripture passages that support eternal security reflects confirmation bias, as contradictory verses are not addressed.
2. Authority Bias: The content relies heavily on authoritative religious figures and texts to substantiate claims, potentially discouraging critical examination. Statements like “Martin Luther said… trust God and sin boldly” use historical authority to validate contemporary beliefs without critical scrutiny.

Unsubstantiated Claims

1. Holy Spirit’s Role: The content asserts that the Holy Spirit aids believers in overcoming sin, yet provides no empirical evidence for this claim. “We always have the spirit helping us to do that” is a faith-based statement lacking verifiable support.
2. Efficacy of Jesus’ Sacrifice: The claim that Jesus’ sacrifice ensures permanent salvation, “If Jesus’ blood is there to cancel out sin, how can sin cancel out Jesus’ blood?” is doctrinal and not empirically verifiable. It relies entirely on theological interpretation rather than demonstrable evidence.

Need for Evidence

To align belief with evidence, the content should map its degree of certainty to the available evidence. The claim that “we’re safe in the grace of God” requires substantial theological and philosophical justification, particularly in light of opposing views within Christian theology. Testing the alleged promises of God could involve examining the practical outcomes of living according to these beliefs, though such tests would be inherently limited by the subjective nature of religious experience.

Potential Methods of Testing

1. Behavioral Outcomes: Observing long-term behavioral changes in individuals who follow these teachings might provide some insight, although this approach would face challenges in isolating variables.
2. Psychological Studies: Conducting psychological studies on the impact of beliefs about grace and repentance on mental health and well-being could offer indirect evidence of the teachings’ efficacy.
3. Comparative Analysis: Comparing the experiences of individuals from different theological backgrounds regarding feelings of security and fear of sin could highlight the practical implications of these beliefs.

Conclusion

In summary, the content reviewed from the #STRask podcast presents several logical inconsistencies, cognitive biases, and unsubstantiated claims. A more rigorous alignment of belief with evidence is necessary to substantiate the claims made. Testing the promises of God, while challenging, could involve behavioral and psychological studies as well as comparative analyses. Readers are encouraged to critically examine these arguments and consider the degree of evidence supporting their beliefs.

---

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