Category: Book Plunge

Book Plunge: The Bible and the Ballot Chapter 6

War. What is it good for? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I was quite surprised at the start to see that Longman says the Old Testament battles are not relevant to the question of warfare. Really? Imagine if we saw in the Old Testament this said whenever Israel went to war.

“And behold, the Israelites went out to meet the enemy and the Earth opened up and swallowed the enemy whole. The Israelites offered up sacrifices in praise to God and returned peacefully to their own towns.”

Would that be relevant if the Israelites never themselves actually engaged in warfare, but God fought all their battles? Could that not give a message then of saying, “God will handle all your physical enemies?” Instead, the Israelites were trained for war. Actually, Preston Sprinkle begins his case for pacifism in his book Fight by looking at the Old Testament.

Longman is right when he points out that while Israel fought battles and God fought their enemies at times, when Israel was disobedient, God fought them as well. God kept His standards the same. Impurity was not to be in the land and if that meant Israel was impure, then they could not be in the land.

Then of course, we get to the New Testament with spiritual battles and eventually, battles taking place in Revelation. (Which I largely think have already happened, but it is still warfare.) This is all well and good, but readers are left wondering, “Okay. That’s how it was then. What about today? Should a nation ever go to war and if so, under what conditions?”

Longman starts with self-defense. Here he looks to Exodus 22:2-3 where if a thief is killed robbing someone’s house, there will be no guilt if it happened at night, but there will be if it happened during the day. Why the difference? Longman thinks it is because the occupants will be gone during the day or more likely to tell if the thief is a threat or not. I think the latter part is more likely in that during the night, one can’t see if the thief is armed or not. During the day, they can.

As much as I hold the Bible allows for self-defense, I do not think Longman’s use of the New Testament Last Supper account where Jesus tells the disciples to buy a sword is sufficient. What good would two swords do against the Roman army? If anything, this seems like exasperation on the part of Jesus that the disciples misunderstood again.

However, I do think a stronger case is found in that throughout the New Testament, and Longman does make this case, whenever military people are encountered, they are treated respectfully and never told to change their career. If anyone wants to say Cornelius dropped out of the Roman military after his conversion, the impetus is on them to demonstrate it. No one is ever told to cease being a soldier.

Also, it shouldn’t be a surprise the New Testament doesn’t give a direct answer to this question. It is not concerned with how a government should be run. It is concerned about the kingdom of God and the lives of ordinary Christians.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: The Bible and the Ballot: Chapter 5

What about religious liberty? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

This chapter was surprising. In all fairness, the Bible doesn’t say much about religious liberty. In the Old Testament, Israelites were expected to be loyal to YHWH as part of the covenant people and within a nation, that was the way it lived. You didn’t want to be a part of the covenant people? Clear out of dodge. Don’t go trying to be a pagan in Israel.

Do you want to come to Israel? Sure, but you are not allowed to set up Bob’s House of Idols while you’re there. You enter the land of Israel and you play by the rules of Israel.

When we get to the New Testament, we are never given a system of governance on how people are to be led. Christians are expected to be loyal to King Jesus. It is not until we get to the Fathers struggling in a pagan culture that we first see arguments for religious liberty. Robert Wilken says this started with Tertullian.

In fairness to Longman, Wilken’s book came out just months before Longman’s so it’s likely he didn’t have time to get it for that perspective. Book writing can be a lengthy process. Had there been a few years difference between the books, there would be an issue, but I urge Longman to read Wilkens’s book.

Longman does rightly go to the first amendment and says that it is most likely this did not mean no religious voices in the public square. It just meant there wouldn’t be a national religion mandated by the government. That is correct, but at the time the founders still held to blasphemy laws. Government funds were used to support missionary endeavors.

Longman then brings up conflicts the church has with the LGBTQ community in the area of law. Indeed, this is part of the problem that many of us saw when the State decided that somehow, the founders thought that two men could declare themselves married. When you try to redefine marriage, you have to defend that redefinition by going after anyone who disagrees with it.

However, there is one paragraph I will quote in full here since I was so dumbfounded by it.

We should begin by remembering that Christianity was birthed in a culture that had virtually no religious liberty (at least toward the new Christian religion). Religious liberty, in short, is not a biblical principle. p. 70

I’m sorry. What?

I even asked some professors here if I was misreading that to make sure. Nope. They thought it said the same thing.

So let’s see if we can rephrase this:

We should begin by remembering that Christianity was birthed in a culture that had virtually no faithful monogamy. Faithful monogamy, in short, is not a biblical principle.

We should begin by remembering that Christianity was birthed in a culture that had virtually no value for female children. Value for female children, in short, is not a biblical principle.

Does any of this make sense?

Now Longman does believe we should value our liberty, but we should not demand it. I am not sure what he means by this. Should a preacher being told to marry a same-sex attracted couple or else not stand up? It’s unclear.

Longman does refer to C.S. Lewis talking about the criminalization of homosexual behavior and Lewis asking what business of the State is that. To this, I suggest we keep in mind that when it comes to behavior, the state can do one of three things. It can permit, promote, or prohibit. This should also not be dependent on if a religious tradition says so or not.

For instance, is there any secularist who would like to have the laws against murder repealed because the Ten Commandments also have a law against murder? Doubtful. If murder is wrong, it is wrong regardless of what any religion says about it.

So looking at same-sex behavior as Lewis was concerned about, he did not want it prohibited, probably in the sense of breaking into peoples’ bedrooms. In this case, it is permitted. Going out in public and doing it would be a different matter just as much as if a heterosexual couple did that. Our society has now gone the route of promote, such as the Biden White House having pride flags on it. I suspect Lewis would say the same thing. “What business of that is the State’s?”

So in the end, I think Longman’s chapter has the big flaw in saying that religious liberty is not a biblical principle because the Roman Empire didn’t practice it. Even if the conclusion was correct, he has given a horrible reason for thinking it. We should not expect the Bible to give us a model on how to run a multicultural government. That is not its place.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: The Bible and the Ballot Chapter 4

What about nationalism? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

There are a lot of myths I see going around on the interwebs. Some people have this idea that Christians want to set up a theocracy. I could probably count on one hand the number of Christians I know who are interested in that. If a Christians wants to ban abortions or undo the decision to redefine marriage, why that’s just making Christianity the official religion.

Because believing marriage is between a man and a woman which is what everyone else believed up until 5 seconds ago means making going to church on Sunday a law of the land.

So having said that, let’s see what Longman says. At the start, I will agree with him that a large part of our problem in society is that we are individualistic. Individualism is a major problem in our culture today and it gets us more and more focused on ourselves. Our churches are filled with pastors who will talk more about their own lives than they will the life of Jesus. Don’t believe me? See how many times your pastor tells a story about himself in his sermon and how many times he tells you something about the life of Jesus.

There will also be no disagreement with Longman on God calling Abraham to make him a great nation known as Israel and that that nation would bless the other nations. Christians should celebrate the calling of Israel in the past. We should realize the Jews are our ancestors through Abraham, as Paul implies in 1 Cor. 10 when he talks about “our ancestors” passing through the waters of the Red Sea.

We can also agree with Longman that we are indeed citizens of a heavenly country. Still, that does not dispute that we can be earthly citizens as well. Paul himself often used to his benefit when he thought it necessary the fact that he was a Roman citizen. When in Acts he is about to be flogged, the text doesn’t say, “And Paul remembered he was really a citizen of Heaven, so he said nothing about being a Roman citizen which would have prevented the flogging.” He makes an appeal to Caesar later in the book which he could do because he was a Roman citizen.

Something I do disagree with Longman on is that we can love our nation too much. He says it is wrong to want to see America thrive at the expense or neglect of other nations. Longman describes this as dangerous.

First off, on a technical point, Lewis once said you can never love something too much. What you are actually doing is loving what you should love too little. The solution is never to decrease love for the one thing, but increase the love for what is really more important.

Second, Longman gives no examples of what he means by this. While there is no problem with helping others in need, there is a point when what we consider help is not really helping at all. The classic example of this is the little boy who tries to help the butterfly emerge, not realizing he is really killing the butterfly in doing such. For a look at this, see my review of When Helping Hurts. Often, people look at an economic policy and say “We want to really help these people and our hearts are in the right place, so this is the right thing to do.” No. Good intentions do not always lead to good results.

If we do try to help another nation, we should try to help not in the sense of building a relationship of dependence, but in a sense of trying to get the nation to be independent to some extent. Good parents do not raise children to be dependent on them. Good parents try to work themselves out of a job so the children will not need them, because the time will come when the parents aren’t around.

Along those lines, I see many times on X nowadays that some leftists are posting the allegation that Trump and/or Musk want to eliminate Social Security or Medicaid. They then ask “What will happen to all these people who depend on these systems?”! We can debate if the allegations are true or not all day long, but no one seems to stop and say “Isn’t it a problem that we have so many people dependent on the government to survive anyway?”

That should also be an indictment on the church that we are not doing our part to take care of our neighbor.

Next time, we’ll see what Longman has to say about religious liberty.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: The Bible and the Ballot Chapter 3

What themes are essential in Scripture? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Again, there is not much here that I disagree with. Longman does write about the importance of the imago dei and I doubt he would disagree with my stance on that I think John Walton is largely right on what that image means. I also agree that Adam and Eve did know right from wrong before they ate of the forbidden fruit and likely, what they were wanting was some kind of moral autonomy.

I did find it odd to read what Longman said about how we treat other people on p. 60. Not that i disagree with others, but that Longman has made some quite pointed statements about how he views people who disagree with him politically, such as Trump supporters. I will not share such quotes here, but if you are on Facebook, you can go to his page and just search for terms like MAGA and Trump and others and see what he says.

It’s also odd on how he says on p. 71 that first off, America is not a theocracy. I have done interactions for years on the internet. I have yet to meet anyone who I think contends that we live in a theocracy. I really would like to meet these people that are so abundant and I seem to be missing. He also says that Christians should not vote for the candidate that has faith, but for people that have ethical wisdom to help out their communities in practical ways.

He does not realize that many of us who voted for Trump did just that. It is ironic that he disparages people for following advice that he himself gave. Of course, if you have a candidate of faith, that is even better, but if such a candidate doesn’t exist, then first off, Christians need to do better. Second, we have to vote for which we think is the best option. Of course, Longman is free to debate with people on who has the best wisdom to guide us, but he should at least give the benefit of the doubt that we are trying to do what he recommends.

Finally, on p. 76, he says that when we engage with those that we disagree with, that our speech should always be loving. He says that our age is very partisan and we can have strong disagreements with people on important issues. We should always be loving and respectful to others.

I will give some qualified agreement to this, but keep in mind, these are Longman’s standards, and I contend that he himself does not practice them. That is the main reason I got the book at the library when I started my exchanges with him on his Facebook page and on Robert Gagnon’s page.

My disagreement? For starters, I have no problem with speaking in love, but love does not mean sentiment. Love can sometimes mean hitting someone straight between the eyes with hard truth. Is John the Baptist loving when he speaks about the Pharisees as a brood of vipers? Yes. Is Jesus loving in Matthew 23 and Luke 11 towards the Pharisees and teachers of the Law? Yes. Is Paul loving when he says he wishes the circumcision crowd would go the whole way and emasculate themselves in Galatians 5? Yes.

All of those statements stem from a love that these people had, love for the ones they cared about especially being misled by those they opposed. Love will not always come across as “kind” or “nice” to other people. I have had conversations with atheists who said they listened and paid attention because I stepped hard on their toes and put them in their place. Those are the ones who I know are taking truth seriously and we have great relationships from then on.

Next time, we’ll see what Longman has to say about nationalism, patriotism, and globalization.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: The Bible and the Ballot Chapter 2

How does Scripture help us with political decisions? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Again, there is much that I agree with Longman on in this chapter. After some reminders of the last chapter, he talks about case laws. These are laws that reflect principles found in the Ten Commandments, An interesting example he has of this is to not mix seeds when planting. This was to remind Israel that they were a separate people, though I would also add it was to remind them that God was a pure being without any mixture in His nature.

Yet having said that, Israel was also always welcome, as Longman points out, to outsiders to come in. Those who wanted to come in and be a part of the community could do so. This included people like Ruth, Uriah the Hittite, and Rahab.

One example he also gives of case law is the way that steps weren’t to be built leading up to the altar. Why? Because that way, when the priest wore his robes, his body could not be seen going up the stairs to the altar. That would avoid sexual practices being mixed in to the worship like it was in the surrounding pagan societies.

Longman also writes about the relationship between the testaments, and again, there is largely agreement here. For instance, Matthew 5:17 speaks about the Law being accomplished. There are parts of the Law that we all no longer observe due to Christ coming. (In my recent look at The Pauline Paradox, I stated that the people who hold to this likely no longer offer sacrifices as an example.)

Finally, Longman writes about the Redemptive-Ethical Trajectory. This is where I start to have some concerns and the biggest problem is that Longman doesn’t define his terms. For instance, he asks how some skeptics will ask why slavery wasn’t abolished in the Old Testament or even the New.

My problem here is that he doesn’t define slavery, which might sound simple, but really isn’t. Even if you say, “it’s owning people as property”, then we have to ask what is property? In the Old Testament system, everything in the land belonged to God. No one technically owned anything. It was simply something that was leased to them, as it were, by God.

Not only this, but part of the problem is we can think of slavery and automatically read Civil War slavery into the system. Civil War slavery was entirely wrong, but it was not the same as slavery in the ancient world. Many slaves in times of the Roman Empire had a degree of freedom for instance. In the Old Testament, a slave was to be provided for and really, that was the only way a poor person could earn a living, by working for a richer one.

My biggest concern was when he mentions patriarchy and again, he never defines it or even says what is bad about it and why. If we mean that it is the rule of men, if this is a lesser good that God is accommodating to, then we have to ask why does He state that He is Father and that Jesus is the Son? Why is it that men are constantly leaders in the community and even in the New Testament community, especially considering passages such as 1 Tim. 2?

Patriarchy has become a sort of catch-all term today with an idea that men lead as tyrants. Of course, no man should. I am one who believes that in marriage, it should be male headship, but I also say that if a man is the king of his castle, his wife gets treated like a queen. We all know stories about men throwing out Ephesians 5 and demanding their wives to submit. It’s my contention that if a man is being the man he should be in his house, he will never have to wave around the passage like it’s a threat.

Unfortunately, Longman does not tell us what he has in mind with patriarchy nor why it is ipso facto wrong. I also have no reason to think that if women ruled the world, all would suddenly be a utopia of peace and love. No. Whichever people lead the world, there will be problems, because all people are sinners. The problem is not the system so much as the people.

Next time we’ll look at what Longman calls essential Biblical themes.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: The Bible and the Ballot Chapter 1

How do you read the Bible properly? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

In this chapter, there really isn’t much that I disagree with Longman on. We both reject the postmodern idea that there is no inherent meaning in the text. We both embrace insofar as it is possible trying to find out who the author of a text is. We both accept that we should know what the text is in that a poem will be read quite different from a historical narrative, although a narrative can have poetry and poetry can describe a historical event.

Also, the text of the Bible was written for us but not to us. Paul in 1 Corinthians 10 tells his audience that what happened in the past to Israel was written for our benefit. It was written for us, but it was written to them. There are a number of things not readily apparent due to time, distance, culture, language, etc.

There are some issues I have some minor quibbles with. For instance, Longman uses the Aposles’ Creed as an example of a summary of the central teachings of the Bible. I have no problem with that. Why would I? I even wrote an ebook on the topic.

My concern comes when we are told that all of these are clearly presented in Scripture and unite Christians worldwide. Not so fast there. What about the line that Jesus descended into Hell? There could be some Christians who think that Jesus literally did go to Hell for a time. I thoroughly disagree with them, yet that seems to be what the creed says.

Note that in this that I am not saying that the creed is in error in what it says. I am saying that there is a far cry from saying that this is something that is clearly taught in Scripture seeing as it can be debated amongst Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox what this term means. If anything, we can say Jesus told the thief on the cross, “Today, you will be with me in Paradise.” I seriously doubt by that He was saying “We’re going to Hell together.”

There could be also Protestants out there that will balk at the idea of believing in the holy catholic church. Of course, properly understood, this is catholic with a  little and not Catholic with the big one. This is just saying that one believes in the church universal.

Not only that, but a large number of people will have things that they think should be in there. A number of Protestants would likely see justification by faith as a clear teaching of Scripture. (And I would agree with them) A number of Catholics and Orthodox might want to see something on the Eucharist in there.

However, these are minor issues. I think Longman moves past matters too quickly, but fortunately, there are footnotes that point to other references that can be used. I am sure Longman and I would both agree that a reader should consult a much fuller book on how to interpret Scripture. This is not to discredit Longman on this point, but just to say one chapter can’t have the whole nuance a book does.

Next time, we’ll get into something more substantial.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: The Bible and the Ballot Introduction

Are we a Christian nation? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I was watching the Facebook battle between Robert Gagnon and Tremper Longman over politics. I sided with Gagnon. In the comments, Longman challenged me to read his book The Bible and the Ballot. Seeing as I didn’t want to buy the book, I decided to go to the seminary library and fortunately, I found it.

So let’s start with the introduction.

I don’t disagree with everything Longman says. He says the the state is not the church, but I can’t really think of any Christians I know who think that. I am aware of Christians who hold to a theonomy position, of course, but not any who think right now the state is the church. This left me wondering who he had in mind when writing this.

The part that really surprised me was when he said that America today is not a Christian nation. He says this both about its founding and its present status. (2) He says that our founders did include some people of faith, but many who were influenced more by enlightenment thought. In the footnote, he points to John Locke.

I found this utterly astounding. For one thing, John Locke is the same one who wrote The Reasonableness of Christianity. He was heavily influenced in his writings by the Apostle Paul. Longman gives no indication of knowing about this. Would any of his readers realize this or would they walk away thinking Locke was a purely secular individual?

Second, there is the statement about the Founding Fathers, but no sources whatsoever listed on them. There is no interaction with an author like John Eidsmoe, for instance. The reader will be left confused and if anything, thinking the majority or at least a sizable number of the Fathers were atheists or secularists of some kind.

Third, when he says that America is not a Christian nation, what does this mean? Does it mean that there is no nationally established church? Sure, but that does not mean that the nation is not Christian. Does he mean that the government is not built on a Christian system of some sort? Even granting that, the government is not the nation.

Not only this, one of our founding documents, the Treaty of Paris, was done in the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity. Unlike the Treaty of Tripoli, there is no dispute on its wording. There is even a Supreme Court ruling from 1852 saying America is a Christian nation.

I understand that Longman is an Old Testament and Ancient Near East scholar and not one on American history, but that makes it all the more important to back claims that are made. Unfortunately, this simple section has left me puzzled by what is meant and wondering just how much of the Founding Fathers that Longman has interacted with.

Fortunately, that is the most problematic part of the introduction. Next time we look at this book, we’ll look at a guide on how one should read Scripture. I hope you’ll join me.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

Book Plunge: Beyond the Salvation Wars Chapter 9 Part 3

What about imputed righteousness? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Right at the start, Bates says that imputed righteousness does not show up in Scripture. Scripture speaks about the faith for righteousness being imputed, but not the righteousness itself. Bates goes so far as to say that this assumes a merit view of salvation which shows Protestant soteriology could have been influenced unintentionally by Catholic soteriology.

Doesn’t Scripture say Jesus is a ransom? Yes, but for many, and not individuals. When many were ransomed, it was paid not to everyone individual account, but rather to a large lump sum. Even when martyrs died in Jewish faith, they were said to die collectively for the people.

Doesn’t Colossians 2 say a written record was erased for us? Yes. Erased. Not paid.

Aren’t we clothed in righteousness? Yes, but none of these texts speak along the lines of imputation. They speak more in a representative sense. Perhaps Bates thinks they should be seen as group identification somehow.

Bates recommends instead, incorporated righteousness. This is not where Christ gives us His righteousness per se, but we choose to identify with Him and thus participate in His righteousness, rather than the sinfulness of Adam. We claim HIm as our king and make Him our exemplar.

How long is such a person righteous in this model? As long as they are in Christ. When they are in Christ, then they are justified. If they ever turn their back on Christ and walk away, they will no longer be justified. While I get Bates’s idea here, this is again an area I think he needs a whole other book on. We need a work on Christian assurance and forgiveness since I am sure some Christians reading this could wonder “But what if I’m not really in Christ?” (It’s not rare. I get their emails with concerns.)

This also gets us more into group identity instead of the individualism we have. As we live with Jesus as our King, we are more and more to walk as Jesus walked. We will grow in character and virtue which means that we will do the works that are fitting for people who are servants of Christ.

As I said in an earlier post, the last chapter of the book is largely a summation and this brings us to an end for this chapter. So overall, I do like Bates’s book. Even if one doesn’t agree with everything in there, and most won’t regardless as we all have at least little things we could disagree with, overall, I find much of his work to be intriguing and I think it is a work that evangelical scholarship needs to take seriously. I regularly fellowship with Catholics especially and I would like to see more done to bridge the divide.

That being said, my main recommendation is still the same. Bates needs to write a book on forgiveness and assurance. My fear is a lot of Christians will read this and wonder upon what they can base their security. Are they doing enough work? If they are struggling in their walk, does that show they are not real Christians?

I look forward to reading that book.

And again, if you want to get your copy, go here.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: Beyond the Salvation Wars Chapter 9 Part 2

What is the gospel-allegiance model of salvation? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

The first part, I’m going to quote a section of seeing as I think it’s pretty important.

Saving faith as allegiance to a king. Saving faith (pistis) in the New Testament is embodied, enacted relationally, and already includes good works within its purview. 1 Neither the Catholic nor the Protestant model tends to speak about saving faith as inclusive of active fidelity toward a king in this way.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 4253-4256). Kindle Edition.

The second part of his model is that works are included in justification. At this, some of you might get nervous, understandably so. Isn’t it all grace? That gets us into the third part of Bates’s model.

The model argues in the third part that this does not negate grace. One who does works shows their honor to the one who has given them the gift of grace. Works are not done to earn grace, but because the grace is already there. If we receive the gift of justification and do no works, we are not truly showing loyalty to Jesus, likely because He is not really our king to begin with.

Next, resurrection life is part of this justification. We are to be living the life of resurrection in that we are new creations in Christ. The old has passed and the new has come.

The next step is that we are not made righteous through impartation. This is a challenge to the view of the Council of Trent. Bates says that Trent did not have proper Scriptural interpretation on this point.

That being said, he does agree with the Catholics that we are to grow in the virtues and that this is part of justification. I happen to think this is something we need to think about, as virtue is not really taught that much anymore. One of the important parts of philosophy long ago used to be virtue. We need to bring that back.

The seventh step for Bates is that allegiance, not baptism, is when justification occurs. Baptism is part of allegiance, all things being equal. My biggest hurdle to baptism was a fear of going underwater, something that I still have to this day. Having a steel rod on my spine making it hard for me to bend back doesn’t help and when my baptism came, I went under the bare minimum. There can be issues obviously with people who are parapalegic and other such cases.

Overall, I do understand people concerned about some aspects of Bates’s model and I’m sure that he understands that as well, but if Protestants look at it and say, “But it’s not the traditional reading”, then we are forgetting a reason we had the Reformation to begin with. We need to be able to question ideas and discuss them. If the model works with Scripture and is backable, then we can go with it. If not, Bates would be the first one to agree to go back to the drawing board.

Next time, we’ll look at what Bates says about imputed righteousness.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: Beyond the Salvation Wars Chapter 9 Part 1

What kind of righteousness do we have? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Here we get to Bates’s idea of righteousness and how it comes about. He starts off with saying that there is in Catholicism an infused righteousness that starts at baptism. The person then works in tandem with God to continue down the path of justification.

Bates also refers to Wright’s work. While he agrees with a good deal of Wright and appreciates him immensely, he doesn’t agree entirely. The Protestants have often spoke of imputed righteousness. Instead, Bates will write of incorporated righteousness.

Early on, Bates says something that both Protestants and Catholics will hopefully agree to.

To exclude the apostles from the church or justification is impossible for all concerned. Not only Protestants but also Catholics must appeal to Scripture when modeling justification: Any claim about what is always true about how justification happens must be able to take into account what Scripture says about how the apostles and earliest Christians were justified, or else the apostles have been excluded from the church. Catholics are required to make their case from Scripture too. This is why the Council of Trent did not appeal primarily to tradition in its “Decree on Justification” but sought to make its case extensively from Scripture.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 4238-4243). Kindle Edition.

He also says that we have had 500 years to look further at the doctrine of justification. What could have been said in the past could easily have been unfortunately, reactionary due to the needs of the time. Not only that, but as Bates says, we have uncovered more documents and historical sources that were not available to either the Reformers or Trent.

In saying that, that means that it is not just Scripture, but also tradition plays some role in what is said. Many Protestants can think that Catholics pay more attention to tradition than they should and many Catholics think that Protestants pay little or no attention to Scripture and that church history can jump straight from the apostles to the Reformation. Both are positions to avoid. Catholics definitely need to make sure they are paying attention to Scripture and Protestants need to be familiar with church history and what the church fathers thought.

Lastly, before we wrap this post up, Bates is still strong in saying that both Catholics and Protestants affirm the gospel. In our differences, I do favor this position where we agree that we are discussing issues that should not divide us. We have had enough of that. When Christians live in a culture where we have enemies at the gates, we need to do our work to have more allies instead of more enemies. Of course, we should discuss our disagreements, but discuss them agreeably.

Next time, I will start taking a look at what Bates calls his gospel-allegiance model. We will see how it differs from traditional Protestantism and Catholicism. I have chosen to make this post shorter to allow for more time to discuss those issues.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)