Critiquing: Episode #108 — What if I’m not really saved?

March 10, 2022 | Ask NT Wright Anything – Premier

Assurance of Salvation — Romans Chapter Analysis — Covenant with Abraham — Christian Doctrine of Assurance — Pastoral Counseling

---

Episode Assessment:

		Commentary
Degree of Accuracy	B	The episode demonstrates a commendable degree of factual accuracy, particularly in its detailed references to specific biblical passages. The discussion accurately portrays the theological positions related to salvation as expressed in the New Testament, particularly Paul’s epistles. However, certain interpretations, especially regarding the irrevocability of salvation, could benefit from a more nuanced examination of opposing theological views.
Degree of Coherence	B-	While the episode maintains a generally coherent narrative, certain arguments lack clarity in their articulation. The discussion occasionally shifts between theological and practical considerations without sufficiently bridging the gap between them, leading to a somewhat disjointed presentation. Moreover, some theological concepts, such as the relationship between faith and works, are presented in a manner that might confuse rather than clarify the listener’s understanding.
Absence of Fallacies	C+	The episode contains instances where logical fallacies may be present. Specifically, there are elements of circular reasoning, where the conclusion that assurance of salvation is secure is based on premises that assume the truth of this very conclusion. Additionally, there is a subtle appeal to tradition in the way certain doctrines are defended based on their historical acceptance rather than critical examination of the scriptural basis. These fallacies weaken the overall logical structure of the arguments presented.
Degree of Evidence	C	The episode references several biblical passages to support its claims, but the evidence provided is not consistently rigorous. While key verses from Romans are cited, there is a lack of engagement with counter-texts or alternative interpretations that challenge the presented view of eternal security. Moreover, the episode does not sufficiently address the broader theological debates on salvation, leading to a somewhat one-sided presentation of the evidence.
Degree of Testability	D+	The theological nature of the discussion inherently limits its testability. Assertions regarding the security of salvation and the interpretation of biblical texts are based on doctrinal beliefs rather than empirical evidence. As such, these claims are not easily subjected to verification or falsification, which diminishes the ability to critically assess the validity of the arguments from a rational or scientific perspective.
Rational Confidence	C+	The episode conveys a moderate level of confidence in its assertions, particularly concerning the assurance of salvation. However, this confidence does not always align with the strength of the evidence provided. The discussion would benefit from a more cautious approach that acknowledges the complexity and ambiguity inherent in the theological issues being addressed. By tempering its confidence with a greater awareness of the limitations of the evidence, the episode could offer a more balanced and intellectually satisfying argument.

Potential/Apparent Weaknesses:

1. Degree of Testability

The content’s reliance on theological interpretation significantly reduces its testability. Theological assertions, such as the claim that salvation is irrevocable for true believers, are grounded in doctrinal beliefs rather than empirical evidence. This makes them difficult, if not impossible, to subject to rigorous testing or verification. For example, the episode’s interpretation of Romans 8:38-39 as guaranteeing eternal security is a theological stance that lacks empirical means of verification. This reliance on doctrinal interpretation without offering a mechanism for testing these claims weakens the argument’s overall rational confidence.

“For I’m convinced that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

2. Absence of Fallacies

Several logical fallacies may undermine the episode’s arguments. Notably, circular reasoning occurs when the episode argues that believers should feel assured of their salvation based on the assumption that salvation is indeed assured for believers. This creates a loop where the conclusion is essentially presupposed by the premises. Additionally, the appeal to tradition fallacy is present when the argument is made that assurance of salvation is secure because this has been the traditional understanding within certain Christian communities. This appeal to historical acceptance rather than a critical examination of scriptural evidence weakens the logical foundation of the argument.

“If you think it’s for you, Gentiles, and you only, then that can mean that you too would be cut off. You have to continue in God’s kindness.”

---

Formulations of Major Arguments

Argument #1: Eternal Security in Salvation

Premises:

1. If a person is truly saved, then nothing in creation can separate them from the love of God in Christ Jesus.
2. The scripture in Romans 8:38-39 affirms that nothing can separate believers from the love of God.
3. Therefore, true believers are eternally secure in their salvation.

Counter-Argument:

The argument for eternal security, while comforting, is not without its theological challenges. Romans 8:38-39 indeed speaks to the inseparability of believers from God’s love. However, this passage must be understood within the broader context of scripture, which includes numerous warnings about the necessity of perseverance in faith and the potential for apostasy (e.g., Hebrews 6:4-6). The argument assumes a linear interpretation of assurance that neglects the complexity of human agency and the possibility of willfully abandoning one’s faith. Theologically, this leads to a tension between the concept of divine sovereignty and human responsibility. A more nuanced approach would recognize that while God’s love is unfailing, the security of salvation may also depend on the believer’s ongoing commitment to live in accordance with that love.

Argument #2: Assurance as a Basis for Christian Living

Premises:

1. Assurance of salvation is necessary for a confident Christian life.
2. The New Testament, particularly Paul’s writings, emphasizes the importance of having assurance in one’s salvation.
3. Therefore, believers should live with confidence in their assured salvation.

Counter-Argument:

While assurance of salvation can provide a foundation for a confident Christian life, it is essential to approach this assurance with a balance of humility and self-awareness. The New Testament also contains warnings against spiritual complacency and overconfidence. For instance, 1 Corinthians 10:12 cautions believers, “Let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall.” This suggests that assurance should not lead to a false sense of security but rather encourage a continuous and active engagement with one’s faith. Assurance, then, should be seen not as a static guarantee but as a dynamic relationship that requires ongoing commitment and self-examination. Overconfidence in one’s salvation without corresponding actions and humility can lead to a dangerous neglect of spiritual growth and moral responsibility.

Argument #3: The Role of Pastoral Guidance in Salvation Anxiety

Premises:

1. Many believers experience anxiety regarding their salvation, which can be exacerbated by personal doubts and scriptural challenges.
2. Pastoral guidance can help alleviate these anxieties by providing assurance and helping believers interpret challenging scriptures.
3. Therefore, it is important for believers experiencing doubts to seek pastoral guidance.

Counter-Argument:

While pastoral guidance is valuable, it is crucial for believers to take an active role in their spiritual journey by directly engaging with scripture and developing a personal understanding of their faith. Relying solely on pastoral reassurance can create a dependency that stunts spiritual growth and reduces the believer’s ability to critically engage with their beliefs. Personal study and reflection, combined with prayer, allow believers to wrestle authentically with their faith and build a mature, resilient spiritual life. Moreover, pastoral guidance should be seen as a supplement to, rather than a substitute for, personal responsibility in one’s spiritual development. Encouraging believers to seek pastoral advice should be balanced with empowering them to explore and understand their faith on their own, thereby fostering a deeper and more personal connection with their beliefs.

◉ The Prohibition of Doubt:

The Elimination of Doubt as a Violation of Rationality

In Christianity, the pastor is often tasked with the elimination of doubt in the minds of believers. This role, sanctified and praised within religious circles, is viewed as an essential duty—one that ensures the faithful remain steadfast in their belief without wavering. However, this very task stands in direct opposition to the principles of rationality. Doubt, rather than being a foe to be vanquished, is a fundamental component of the rational mind. To deliberately rid a person of doubt is to engage in a violation of rationality itself, for rational belief is always a degree of belief that corresponds to the degree of relevant evidence.

In the realm of rational discourse, doubt is not a weakness; it is the bedrock of intellectual integrity. It is through doubt that one examines the validity of claims, questions the sufficiency of evidence, and ultimately arrives at conclusions that are proportionate to the strength of the evidence presented. A rational mind welcomes doubt as a necessary check against dogmatism and blind belief. It recognizes that absolute certainty is rarely, if ever, attainable and that beliefs must be held tentatively, subject to revision in light of new evidence.

Contrast this with the Christian pastor’s role. In seeking to eliminate doubt, the pastor often encourages a form of belief that is immune to evidence, one that demands certainty without the corresponding epistemic justification. This kind of faith is inherently irrational. It is a faith that resists scrutiny, that fears the probing questions which are the very lifeblood of rational inquiry. The task of the pastor, then, is not to foster rational belief but to instill a form of intellectual submission—a submission that demands the believer accept doctrinal claims without the rigorous examination that doubt naturally provokes.

Such a prohibition of doubt is not only a disservice to the believer but an affront to the very nature of human cognition. By discouraging doubt, the pastor cultivates an environment where critical thinking is stifled, where the believer is trained to suppress their natural curiosity and skepticism. This is a profound violation of the mind’s autonomy—a suppression of the intellectual freedom that is necessary for genuine understanding.

Faith, as promoted in this context, becomes not a reasoned trust based on evidence, but an authoritarian demand for unquestioning allegiance. It is the antithesis of rational belief, which is always provisional, open to question, and grounded in evidence that can be evaluated and re-evaluated. The rational mind does not fear doubt; it embraces it as a necessary part of the process of seeking truth. Any attempt to eliminate doubt, therefore, is an attempt to undermine the very foundation of rational thought.

In conclusion, the task of the Christian pastor, when it involves the eradication of doubt, stands in stark opposition to the principles of rationality. To artificially rid the mind of doubt is to violate the rational process by which true knowledge is acquired. It is to replace the humility of intellectual inquiry with the arrogance of unquestioned certainty—a certainty that, by its nature, cannot coexist with the principles of a rational and evidence-based worldview.

---

I warmly welcome you to discuss this topic further in the comments section. Let’s explore together the implications of doubt in rational discourse and its relationship to faith.