Critiquing: Episode #048 — Broken Signposts and Questions on Forgiveness and Salvation

December 3, 2020 | Ask NT Wright Anything – Premier

Christian Apologetics — Conversion Experience — Limited Atonement — Broken Signposts — Forgiveness Debate

---

Episode Assessment:

		Commentary
Degree of Accuracy	C+	The episode provides a mix of accurate theological insights but lacks rigorous referencing and fails to provide sufficient evidence for many claims. This reduces the overall reliability of the content.
Degree of Coherence	C	The discussion maintains a degree of logical flow but is interrupted by abrupt topic changes and tangential comments, which disrupt the narrative and make it challenging for listeners to follow the argumentation clearly.
Absence of Fallacies	C-	Instances of potential logical fallacies include appeals to authority and tradition without substantial supporting evidence. The arguments around atonement, in particular, lack robust logical structure, leading to questionable conclusions.
Degree of Evidence	D+	The episode relies heavily on theological assertions without presenting empirical or scriptural evidence to substantiate claims. The lack of cited sources or detailed references diminishes the strength of the arguments presented.
Degree of Testability	D	The theological claims discussed are inherently difficult to test or verify empirically. The reliance on doctrinal interpretations rather than testable propositions limits the capacity for external validation of the arguments.
Rational Confidence	C-	The confidence in the theological assertions is high, but this confidence is not well-mapped to the strength of the evidence provided. The discussion often assumes agreement without adequately addressing counterpoints or alternative interpretations.

Potential/Apparent Weaknesses:

1. Accuracy Issues

One of the key weaknesses in the episode is the occasional lack of factual precision when discussing complex theological concepts. For instance, when addressing the concept of limited atonement, there is an assumption of universal understanding that may not be accurate for all listeners.

“I’ve heard it is his death that forgives them, yet he seemed to be forgiving sins before his death in the gospel accounts.”

The host and guest did not clarify the theological nuances behind pre- and post-crucifixion forgiveness, leading to potential misconceptions about the nature of atonement and forgiveness in Christian doctrine.

---

2. Coherence Problems

The coherence of the discussion is occasionally disrupted by sudden shifts in topic without sufficient transitional explanation. This can confuse listeners and dilute the strength of the arguments.

“Now I’ve mentioned it Broken Signposts. It’s the new book at least in the UK edition the subtitle is How Christianity Makes Sense of the World. Tell us a little bit about the latest book then.”

The abrupt shift from discussing general theological questions to promoting a book interrupts the flow, leaving listeners without a clear connection between the topics discussed.

---

3. Logical Fallacies

The episode contains instances where logical fallacies might occur, particularly in arguments that appeal to tradition or authority without sufficient evidence.

“The idea of limiting God’s rescuing love is just almost blasphemous it’s ridiculous so we need to be able to rethink these great swathes of biblical theology.”

Such statements rely on emotional appeal and assumed theological authority rather than presenting a reasoned argument supported by evidence or logical coherence.

---

Formulations of Major Arguments

Argument #1: Forgiveness Before and After the Cross

1. Jesus forgave sins during his ministry (premise).
2. Jesus’ death on the cross provides the ultimate basis for forgiveness (premise).
3. Therefore, Jesus’ forgiveness during his ministry was valid due to his forthcoming sacrifice (conclusion).

Counter-Argument:
While the argument attempts to reconcile pre- and post-crucifixion forgiveness, it presumes the necessity of future validation, which lacks empirical support. Additionally, the theological basis for forgiveness could be seen as inherently valid within Jesus’ divine authority without requiring retroactive justification. Moreover, the concept of temporal forgiveness might not align with the timeless nature of divine grace, suggesting that forgiveness could be a continuous, rather than a time-bound, aspect of Jesus’ ministry.

Argument #2: Limited vs. Universal Atonement

1. Limited atonement suggests Jesus died only for the elect (premise).
2. Universal atonement suggests Jesus died for all people (premise).
3. The scope of atonement impacts evangelistic zeal and theological perspectives (conclusion).

Counter-Argument:
This dichotomy fails to address the nuance within scriptural interpretations and historical contexts. The emphasis on either/or fails to recognize the spectrum of belief systems that incorporate elements of both views. Additionally, evangelistic fervor is not necessarily diminished by theological positions but rather by personal conviction and understanding. Furthermore, the binary framing of atonement overlooks the theological developments that propose a more integrated approach, such as Karl Barth’s perspective on election and atonement, which attempts to bridge the gap between limited and universal atonement.

Argument #3: Conversion as Quintessential Experience

1. Conversion is seen as essential within evangelical Protestant tradition (premise).
2. Second or third-generation Christians may not have a dramatic conversion experience (premise).
3. Therefore, the lack of a conversion experience does not invalidate one’s Christian faith (conclusion).

Counter-Argument:
While conversion is significant in many traditions, the overemphasis on a singular dramatic experience can marginalize those whose faith journey is gradual. A broader understanding of faith development acknowledges diverse spiritual paths and maintains the integrity of lifelong Christian practice. Additionally, the theological foundation of Christianity supports various modes of faith expression and growth, suggesting that continuous spiritual formation can be as valid as a singular conversion event. The emphasis on “convertedness” rather than a moment of conversion aligns more closely with the scriptural narrative of ongoing discipleship and transformation in Christ.

◉ Addressing Argument #1:

Exploring the Spiritual Dynamics of Divine Forgiveness

The theological premise that God cannot forgive sins without the shedding of blood, as asserted in various religious doctrines, raises significant questions about the nature of divine forgiveness compared to human forgiveness. Humans, even in the face of profound loss, often demonstrate a remarkable capacity to forgive without demanding retribution or punishment. This essay explores whether this human capacity is a virtue or a vice, and whether the theological requirement for divine forgiveness involving extreme suffering can be considered rational or justifiable.

Human Capacity for Forgiveness

Humans have the extraordinary ability to forgive even the most heinous acts, such as the murder of loved ones, without demanding punishment. This capacity is often regarded as a profound virtue, embodying compassion, empathy, and a deep understanding of human fallibility. Forgiveness in human terms does not necessarily entail condoning the act or dismissing justice but rather involves a personal release from the cycle of vengeance and bitterness. This moral high ground is celebrated in many cultures and spiritual traditions as a pinnacle of ethical behavior.

Divine Demand for Bloodshed

In stark contrast, certain theological interpretations posit that God requires extreme suffering and the shedding of blood for the forgiveness of sins. This concept, deeply rooted in sacrificial traditions, suggests that without such atonement, forgiveness is unattainable. The logic behind this need for punishment appears disproportionate, especially when considered against the human inclination towards unconditional forgiveness. The theological stance that even the smallest sin warrants severe punishment from a divine being challenges the human understanding of justice and mercy.

Virtue or Vice?

Is the human capacity to forgive without retribution a vice in divine terms? If a being’s inability to forgive without demanding bloodshed is seen as a higher moral stance, it implies that human forgiveness is inherently flawed or inferior. However, this perspective diminishes the virtue of compassionate forgiveness and suggests that the divine standard is not aligned with human ethical principles. This raises a paradox: if God’s ways are beyond human understanding, does it justify actions that would otherwise be considered unjust by human standards?

Rationalizing the Divine Necessity

Attributing the necessity of extreme suffering to God’s inability to forgive without it seems remote from human notions of forgiveness and justice. The assertion that “his ways are beyond our ways” often serves as a blanket justification for divine actions that appear irrational or inhumane. This reasoning is problematic as it bypasses a reasoned and rational explanation for why such a disproportionate response is necessary. If the human desire to forgive is considered just and virtuous, then the divine necessity for bloodshed before forgiveness stands in stark contrast to this understanding.

Human and Divine Forgiveness

It is challenging to reconcile the human capacity for unconditional forgiveness with the theological demand for sacrificial atonement. While humans can forgive without seeking vengeance, attributing a need for punitive measures to God raises questions about the nature of divine justice and mercy. If forgiveness is a virtue, then the human approach appears more aligned with this virtue than the divine requirement for suffering. The concept that divine forgiveness necessitates extreme punishment seems incongruent with the compassionate and merciful aspects often attributed to the divine character.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the disparity between human and divine forgiveness highlights a significant logical dilemma. The human capacity to forgive without demanding retribution is a profound virtue that stands in contrast to the divine demand for bloodshed. This discrepancy challenges the rationale behind divine forgiveness and raises important questions about the nature of justice, mercy, and the “moral” standards we attribute to God. A deeper exploration and rational explanation of these spiritual dynamics are necessary to bridge this gap and align divine actions with human values.

---

Thank you for engaging with this topic. We warmly welcome further discussion and thoughts in the comments section below. Let’s continue this important conversation together.