Category: Christian Doctrine

Book Plunge: Beyond the Salvation Wars: Chapter 6 Part 5

So what about free will and sovereignty? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

My principles on how this works out are pretty simple.

God is sovereign.
Man has free will.

“Okay. So how do you work those out?”

Don’t know. Don’t care. I just know both of them are taught in Scripture and on a practical basis, it makes no difference. Everyone lives as if they did have free will. All Christians agree to some extent at least that God reigns supreme over the universe He created. Is my day-to-day life going to change as a result of how I answer this question? Doubtful. There are far more important questions i have. I have my marching orders to go out and preach the gospel anyway, whether I do it freely or not, and whether God has predestined everyone who will believe or not.

But you’re here for Bates’s views, not mine.

He starts off with talking about Augustine who he says was the first one to really work out a soteriological system in church history and it has been the one adopted by most of the church. It’s called monergistic compatibalism. It says that God supplies everything that is lacking in personal salvation and organizes all the details to help people get saved.

This kind of system to some extent he says is still held by Calvinists and others today. The Reformers no doubt were very influenced by Augustine. Of course, a lot of non-Calvinists raise the question about God being the author of evil to some extent. If God is in charge of everything, how do we avoid God being the direct cause of evil and even of the human creature sinning?

Another system that came up later on was Molinism. Bates doesn’t say as much about this, but has it based on God’s middle knowledge. God knows what would have happened if X had happened instead of Y. Those wanting more on this should read the work of Tim Stratton for a positive viewpoint of it. I still have my own personal questions, but again, this is a topic I really don’t get involved with.

Bates does say that neither Jesus nor the apostles held to these views, but at this, I must offer some pushback. I am not saying this as one in agreement with these views, but could we get into problems if we say that Jesus or the apostles didn’t hold to the Trinity, in the sense that they didn’t come out quoting the Athanasiam Creed or something like that? We can all agree they weren’t speaking in those terms, but they had everything in their teaching that was needed for that system to flourish.

I don’t think we really can say for sure how they viewed these since their mission was never to spell out a doctrine of salvation, so much as just tell people what they needed to do to be saved. It is similar to how they never spelled out the nature of God, but they left enough for us to come to the conclusion I think they would have supported, the doctrine of the Trinity. That being said, the main emphasis Bates has in this is that the elect one ultimately is the Son. How we work that out, we should all strive to be faithful to Scripture in whatever we conclude.

And I hope we can all agree on that.

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

Book Plunge: Beyond the Salvation Wars: Chapter 6 Part 4

Isn’t Romans 9 proof of election? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I don’t really do Calvinist debates anymore. I just find them uninteresting. I do know that if you do them, you will inevitably be taken to Romans 9. This chapter is about election. Right? Let’s see what Bates has to say about it.

A similar analysis to the one just carried out for Ephesians 1: 3– 14 could be undertaken for all purported examples of individual election unto final salvation in Scripture. That is, excluding the Son, there is not a single unambiguous example where God is said to have predestined an individual to eternal life or eternal damnation before they were born. Nary a one. Jacob? Esau? Pharaoh? Judas? Paul himself? Nope. All of these are chosen in advance by God for specific vocational purposes, but none are described as having been chosen before their own births— let alone before creation— for eternal life or condemnation. That is, God elects or chooses specific individuals for long-term or short-term tasks that relate to his overarching plans, but Scripture does not describe any person as singularly elect for final salvation.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 2770-2776). Kindle Edition.

Bates says Paul himself didn’t think he could take his salvation easy. In 1 Cor. 9, Paul talks about how he treats himself so that he himself will not be disqualified, and yet Paul has described a calling of his own. Bates also has another example of this not being for salvation, namely Esau.

Doesn’t the text say Esau was hated? Yes, but it’s in Malachi and it refers to the nations. God could choose only one nation. Esau in the narrative of Genesis is blessed abundantly still. Esau was chosen to be the one to serve Jacob, not the other way around.

What about Pharaoh? God knows in the text that Pharaoh will harden his heart against Him, but the first hardening takes place by Pharaoh himself. After enough time, God just, as I heard even a Calvinist say once, greases the wheels in the way the cart is already going. What was Pharaoh chosen for? Not to be passed over for salvation, but to display God’s glory through the world. The text of Romans says nothing about Pharaoh’s salvation. (Although considering the story in Exodus, it’s a pretty safe bet.)

What about the image of the potter? In this case, it is still vocational. Even vessels for wrath could still be reshaped and made into something more useful. Paul in this whole section is arguing for the well-being of Israel. Would it not be fitting to say that Israel has incurred God’s wrath for now, but in the end, they will be the recipients of salvation?

In conclusion, Bates sees nothing in the text about individual salvation. This is all about corporate identities and how one sees oneself in alignment with the group of the time. As someone who is not a Calvinist myself, I find that there is much to commend here and is definitely worthy of further research.

Next time, we will look at what he has to say about free-will in salvation.

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

Book Plunge: Beyond the Salvation Wars Chapter 6 Part 3

What about Ephesians 1? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Some people think that Ephesians 1 speaks about individual election. Bates challenges that. If there is one individual who could be called elect, it would be Jesus the Christ and anyone who is in Him is elect. Thus far, I have not read anything about how Bates views free-will or God’s sovereignty in this. I suspect that is a more philosophical question he’s fine to just let the philosophers hash out amongst themselves.

The references to us throughout the text are indeed plural. This refers to a group of people who are in Christ. Not only that, but Bates says that the number is growing. The implication I gather is that if the number of the elect is growing, it can’t be a fixed number that has always been.

For predestination, Bates contends that God predestined the king individually. Those who are in Christ then are part of His community. There could be a parallel in that we are in Adam by representation and thus we choose either to remain in Adam or instead to be in Christ.

One of the mistakes we make in our understanding of Scripture often is that we come to the text and assume that it is answering our questions on our terms. First off, the text might not really care about our questions. Suppose we come to the text and say, “I want to know what God’s will for my life is”.

Now if someone asks me that question, I take them straight to Romans 8 and say that God’s will is to conform you to the likeness of Christ. I find the text to state that outright. If you are in Christ, then God’s will for your life is to conform you to the likeness of Christ.

“Yes, but should I get married? Should I go into ministry? What kind of job should I have? Where should I live? Should I have children?”

All fascinating questions, and none of them are answered in an individualistic level in the text. I find it strange so many people who say Sola Scriptura want to go beyond the text and leave that to personal emotions that they think God is using to speak to them, which is also not found in the text.  The text is not answering our questions.

So let’s suppose one wants to know about if slavery is wrong. Many an atheist will go to the Bible and see slavery is not outright forbidden and then say “There you have it! The Bible never condemns slavery!” In this case, they are using our terms. They are assuming that slavery in the ancient world in Israel was like slavery in the Civil War era of America. Note that they could be right on that hypothetically, but you don’t find that by going to the Bible, seeing where it mentions slavery, and then assuming that the meaning is the same. You have to actually do the research for that.

(And no, they’re not the same.)

Next time, we’ll start tackling more about the idea of individual election.

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

 

Book Plunge: Beyond the Salvation Wars Chapter 6 Part 2

What does it mean to be in Christ? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Going with what Bates says, I will try to summarize his main points. I understand him to be saying that Christ is the elect one, especially since he piggybacks off of the work of Chadwick Thornhill, and insofar as we are in Christ, we are elect as well. The ancient world was much more group-oriented. You got your identity from the people that you were associated with. We are much more individualistic identity. You form who you are on your own.

So when are you an elect? When you are in Christ. Saying that a group is elect doesn’t mean that every individual in that group will keep those benefits. People can leave the group whenever they want and they will lose the benefits of being in the group. In the ancient world, if you got benefits from being a worshipper of a pagan deity and then you became a Christian and stopped worshipping that deity, you would lose the benefits that would come from being with that group.

Couldn’t it be both individual and group identity? Except, it isn’t. In the ancient world, they weren’t interested in asking about an individual and how they could know they were Christian. It was really easy to know. You had the benefits of being with the group and you were like your fellow compatriots in the Christian movement. If you were in the group and the group was Christian, you were Christian. Let’s make a syllogism of it.

All who are in the group are Christian.
John is in the group.
John is a Christian.

We also have writings such as the Dead Sea Scrolls that weren’t available to Trent or to the Protestant Reformers. What does Bates say about those?

The results? Historically based studies of election agree: out of some hundred possible examples, when it pertains to salvation, election is exclusively corporate in the New Testament and related noncanonical literature. Individual election is not a view Jews or early Christians can be demonstrated to have held regularly, if at all, during this era.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 2690-2694). Kindle Edition.

Going with Thornhill, Bates says that overwhelmingly, salvation is spoken of in terms of the group. Someone could point to people in the Gospels who join the group and become Christians, but that’s the point. This isn’t about the individual so much as it is about the welcoming of the group. The statement is more of a whosoever will. Anyone in the Gospels can join the group.

Personally, I hope we return to thinking like this more since I hold that individualism is one of the worst things that has happened to our society and has led to much chaos. Our identities do not work when we try to forge them in ourselves. We work better when we find where we fit in the body of Christ. We are made for community.

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

Book Plunge: Beyond the Salvation Wars Chapter 6 Part 1

Does regeneration precede faith? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

In this chapter, Bates begins looking at the order of salvation about Calvinism. While Bates in my reading has not yet said he is an Arminian, it is clear he is not a Calvinist. He does not get into the metaphysical issues such as the relationship between God and time. For my purposes, I do take that God knows all events past, present, and future. Concerning free will, I contend that God is sovereign, man has free will, and everything else is a jump ball.

One important aspect Bates brings out is that election in the Bible for salvation is normally seen as community-oriented rather than individual. Let’s consider two passages. In Phil. 1:6, we are told that what God began in you, He will bring to completion. There you go! Eternal security in the text.

Except the you there is not an individual. Paul is not writing to one person. He’s writing to a group. In Southern parlance where I live, we would properly say “Y’all.” That does not mean that every single person who starts on the journey in the church will finish it. It means that what God began working in the church he will bring to completion.

And to be fair, consider in the next chapter where he says to work out your salvation with fear and trembling. There you go! A person has to work out their salvation. They are not eternally secure! Except once again, this is “Y’all.” The church is to work out their salvation.

He also points out that texts like Ephesians speak about Christ, not Jesus. Is there a difference?

“Christ” is not a personal name but rather an honorific title. 1 If we functionally reduce “Christ” in the decree to a personal name in order to locate salvation in an eternal person rather than in a messianic office that will eventually come to be filled by an eternal person who took on human flesh through a historical process, we are running against the grain of Scripture’s teaching on salvation. We cannot make the decree accurately refer in the exact messianic way Paul and Peter intend without drawing upon time-bound historical processes that occur later in the story. As we will see, the same is true for election more generally.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 2594-2599). Kindle Edition.

But are there not places in the text that speak of individuals being elect? What about Moses and Pharaoh in Romans 9? What about Jacob and Esau? This is the calling of individuals isn’t it?

Two things and we will expand on these next time.

First, if there is one individual who is called for election it is Christ and we who are in Him are considered to be saved. Jesus is the true elect one. Second, when we see people showing up who are said to be chosen on an individual level, that refers to people who are chosen for a specific vocation and not for salvation.

That’s for next time.

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

 

Book Plunge: Beyond the Salvation Wars Chapter 5 Part 3

Is the plunge salvific? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Now Bates will look at some passages that are used for baptismal regeneration. He notes that 1 Peter 3:21 speaks about the pledge of a good conscience towards God. The pledge is what is salvific. It could be Peter is not saying the water doesn’t wash away sins, as if it could, but rather entering the water is a sign of loyalty to Jesus.

Bates also argues that whatever matters when it shows up is faith, i.e. pistis. It is the loyalty that we give to Jesus. While this would include baptism, it is not that baptism saves us. Undergoing baptism would be more an outward expression of our inward commitment to Jesus.

This also helps deal with some claims that are often struggled with both within Protestantism and Catholicism. I have heard Catholics speak of a baptism of desire, for example. This is a case where someone wants to get baptized, but for whatever reason, they cannot. In such a case, a person is considered saved. Cyprian in his time in the early church noted that some people were martyred before they could get baptized.

He also notes that while the Council of Trent is considered authoritative for Catholics, we do have access to documents the Council did not have. This is simply a matter of fact and is no way an attack on Catholicism. It just means that perhaps some things in Catholicism might need to be re-examined in light of such evidence. Two such documents he refers to are the apology of Justin Martyr and the Didache. (Also, the Reformers would not have access to these so some of their positions might have to be adjusted as well in light of new evidence.) We could consider a parallel with the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Bates then quotes from the First Apology:

Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water

I do not find this as convincing an argument as I do not see anything about them doing it to themselves as Bates says. I do agree with him that there is no mention of a priest in this. Bates says there is no evidence that priests existed at the time and at that, it would be the burden of the other side to demonstrate that they did.

After this, he takes a brief look at Tertullian. The topic under question this time for Bates seems to be infant baptism. Again, there is no indication that this was going on in the early church. If one wishes to say that the practice is biblical, then it will be their burden to make a case for it from the Scriptures.

A final statement is there can be a lot of concern about valid baptisms. Bates says we should relax because salvation is not constrained by baptismal methods, but it is based on allegiance to Jesus. We should expect nothing less today. My own thinking is God does not keep us out of eternity on a technicality.

If I would have added more to this, I would have liked a much more thorough look at Scriptural passages related to the topic of baptismal regeneration, such as Acts 2:38.

Next, Bates will take a look at Calvinism and doctrines of election and regeneration.

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

Book Plunge: Beyond the Salvation Wars Chapter 5 Part 2

How did Jews see baptism? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Usually, I find when baptism is debated, it’s not normally discussed how the Jews saw it. After all, baptism predates Jesus. It even predates John the Baptist. He didn’t come up with some new idea. Bates says we have archaeological evidence from the second century B.C. onward.

The water was not meant to cleanse from sins so much as impurity. He gives the example of a woman who has her period. The flow of blood did not indicate that the woman had done anything sinful. However, it did indicate she was impure and thus, she needed to have her impurity taken care of lest she do damage to anything that would be holy.

We have plenty of evidence of baptism at the Qumran community and Bates says that in this community, repentance came first. After repentance, there was then the preparation of the water for baptism. If one had not repented, one could not be forgiven.

He also references Josephus who says something remarkably similar about baptism.

2. Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were very greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, [for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise,] thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod’s suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death. Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God’s displeasure to him.

You can see it for yourself in Book XVIII, Chapter 5, section 2 of his work here.

So how does Bates sum this up?

Repentance was the true instrument of cleansing prior to baptism, not the baptism nor the water. This is precisely what we observed at Qumran. For Josephus, regarding John’s baptism, the tool that God used to cleanse the true essential person (the “soul”) was repentance and a righteous life prior to baptism.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 2081-2083). Kindle Edition.

I wish I had had this years earlier. I still would have got baptized, but it would have made the stress I was going through a lot easier.

We shall continue next time.

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

Book Plunge: Beyond the Salvation Wars Chapter 5 Part 1

How do we start plunging into the topic of baptism? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

At the start of this chapter, Bates says that baptism was seen as effective for salvation but only on the basis of voluntary repentance and confessing loyalty to King Jesus. At the start, this is him expressing his opposition to infant baptism. Even those who advocate for infant baptism must confess that there is not a single example of it explicitly taking place in the New Testament.

But then it’s off to the real question. Do you have to be baptized to be saved? For my personal history on this topic, I was saved in a Baptist church, but I was not baptized immediately. In my case, I didn’t know anything about coming forward and sharing your decision. I did see people getting baptized and I know people rejoiced at seeing it, and I understand it, but I got frightened instead.

Because to this day, I have a strong fear of being in water.

Probably also got a bit more difficult when I had a steel rod placed on my spine about 2 months before turning 16. Really hard to bend after that.

I went to Bible College and I was a bit naive. I didn’t know as much as I thought I did and didn’t know much about denominational differences. My college turned out to be in the Churches of Christ movement that sees baptism as essential for salvation. Thus, I began my study on this topic.

I wish I had Bates’s book back then. He handles the topic so well.

Did I get baptized eventually? Yes. By immersion. I also went under what was the bare minimum. The minister knew about my steel rod and my fear of water.

My stance now is that baptism is not required for salvation, but if you are a Christian, you should get baptized anyway.

Bates in his book points out all the verses used, like 1 Peter 3:21 and Acts 2:38, but starts his case against first by pointing out about people who we have no record of being baptized, including the apostles themselves. He also points out that Paul says that it is by professing that Jesus is Lord that one is saved in Romans 10:9. While this could have taken place at baptism, Paul says the profession is what is salvific.

I would have liked to have seen more interaction at this point on the idea that this was a creed said at baptism. Perhaps it was. Perhaps it wasn’t. It is something I have heard so I am sure Bates has heard it as well and it would behoove him to deal with something like that.

Also, when asked why Cornelius and his guests were baptized after receiving the Holy Spirit, Bates says “We don’t know.” This seems strange. Wouldn’t it be for the same reason anyone else is baptized today? That is to show publicly that one has made a declaration of loyalty to King Jesus.

Next time, we’ll look at the question more seeing how Jews saw baptism.

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

Book Plunge: Beyond The Salvation Wars: Chapter 4 Part 4

Are works necessary for salvation? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Okay. So Bates is arguing that salvation comes from allegiance to Christ. Is this a works-based salvation? Do I have to live my life in service to Jesus in order for me to be saved?

My favorite analogy to use with this is a wedding. Imagine that a man meets a girl he really wants to marry. He spends many months wooing her and after a long time of dating, they decide to marry. He makes his vows at the altar as does she. After the wedding then, he drives back alone to his parents’ house, stays with them, and never sees his bride again and says “Married life sure is good!”

We would question if such a man is really married. Yes, a minister might have said something at a ceremony, but look at how he’s living. He’s not interacting with his bride. He doesn’t see her. He doesn’t spend time with her. Definitely then no sex with her. In what sense can he be considered married?

So does this mean that a man has to take his wife into a home with him and be intimate with her in order to be married? No. It’s being said that if a man doesn’t do those things, one can question if he really is married because married people do married things. In a parallel sense, if a man claims to be a Christian, but does nothing in service of Jesus, is he really a Christian? No. Saying you are a Christian entails that you will treat Jesus as your king.

Bates says about works that:

Classic Protestantism assumes that Paul objects to all works with regard to justification. But Paul’s concern is not with works in general (any and every deed) but more precisely with works of the law.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 1612-1614). Kindle Edition.

Is this idea found in Scripture? Yes. Bates says:

Doing is required. In fact, for Paul, good works consistently form part of the basis for final salvation (e.g., Rom. 2: 6; 2 Cor. 5: 10; Gal. 6: 7– 10; 2 Tim. 4: 14; cf. Matt. 16: 27; John 5: 28– 29). It is “the doers of the law who will be justified” (Rom. 2: 13)

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 1622-1624). Kindle Edition.

This is also how one bridges the gap between Paul and James that allegedly exists. James can say “You think Jesus is king? Good. Even the demons believe that, and they tremble.” (Yes. I know the text says that there is one God, but I think this would also apply.) In other words, the demons would believe that and take it seriously enough that they know it’s a threat. If you say you believe that Jesus is king and do nothing, you don’t even take it as seriously as a demon takes it.

So now we get to Bates’s critique then of Catholicism on this point. In Catholicism, there is set up a system of penance many times. There are things one is told to do such as the rosary or anything like that. Bates says that:

Paul is speaking about what it would mean to rebuild the “works of the law” (2: 16). To do so would be to turn back to the dysfunctional old order. It would be to turn away from the liberated new creation that is constituted by the king’s reign via the Spirit’s presence. Any person who reinstalls that stoicheia-based old system proves to be a violator of its regulations. Since the old-covenant system has reached its goal and end, forgiveness can no longer flow through it. Here’s the upshot: Anyone who attempts to reinstate the old covenant or any other written-rule system of salvation, whether in whole or in part, will violate God’s law, incurring the same guilt as someone who has violated every regulation within it.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 1666-1673). Kindle Edition.

Keep in mind Bates is not saying that Catholics are not Christians, but the system set up is problematic. Of course, there are times it is proper to do something, but it is not to receive forgiveness, but because one has it. If I fault my brother and seek forgiveness, I need to go to him even after going to Jesus if it is at all possible to go to my brother. I need his forgiveness as well. I don’t go to him so Jesus will forgive me. I go to him because Jesus has forgiven me and that healing needs to be extended to my walk with my brother.

Next time, we’ll look at how Bates thinks we should read Galatians.

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

Book Plunge: Beyond the Salvation Wars Chapter 3 Part 4

How does politics work with the gospel? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Such is the advice many of us had growing up. Well, aside from the Great Pumpkin. We were taught to never talk about politics and religion in public. (Geez. Could this be why we have so many people today who don’t really know a lot about either topic?)

Matthew Bates argues that we cannot leave politics out of the gospel. We might think of politics as a dirty word, but it is essential. In its origins, it would mean how to function in the city. While this could work on just the city level, such as my own New Orleans having its own politics, this can be applied to the county, state, and yes, the country.

So what does Bates say?

But there is another, quite different reason why we need to reinstall King Jesus at the forefront of gospel proclamation. Consider what happens when we leave kingship out: we end up with a vision of salvation focused on a savior who rescues us from sin so that we can escape to an otherworldly heaven. We have no king and no kingdom and hence no vision for how salvation might connect to today’s Christian social and political activity. This is what is at stake in a second current conversation among Protestants about the gospel’s relationship to social justice.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 1244-1248). Kindle Edition.

The only area I would disagree with here is the usage of the term social justice. I tend to avoid it since it is so hard to define and it usually boils down to an idea that we need to get economic equality, which I contend is impossible, and equality in race and sex, which is also impossible. Let’s give a brief defense of my position on this.

If we could wave a wand and erase everyone’s personal possessions and they each had $1 million dollars then to spend how they wanted, economic equality would have existed for about five seconds. Some people are going to spend their money foolishly. Some people are going to buy businesses and invest and build up their money. Some don’t care about that and will simply enjoy a good life. Some could give their money to charities. We would wind up in the same situation again.

As for equality in race and sex, the overwhelming number of construction workers and sewage workers and people like that are men. Your professional football team doesn’t have women on it. The NBA largely consists of black players and very few Asian players. Different races and heritages have different strengths and weaknesses. Just read some Thomas Sowell to learn more about these.

But now, let’s get back to Bates.

The gospel today seems to not really care about this world. It is about escape from this world. Lewis once said in reply to the idea that some people are so heavenly minded that they’re no earthly good, that it is those who are most heavenly minded who usually do the most earthly good. I do not think it is the same today as many people heavenly minded are simply thinking “How can I get there?”

Bates argues that if we are citizens of the kingdom, then what promotes the virtue of the king should be what we promote in the society. How do you vote? You vote in alignment with what you think King Jesus would support. What causes do you donate to? Those you think King Jesus supports. Of course, we can have disagreements on what those are, but that is for debate and we can discuss our ideas.

I take this to mean that being good citizens of the Kingdom means being good citizens where we have been placed. When Israel went into Babylon, they were told to pray for the welfare of that city. If you are a Christian in a Middle Eastern nation or a Communist nation that is hostile to the gospel, you can still long for the betterment of your country. If you do not love your country at all, you will not want it to embrace the gospel of Christ. An Iranian Christian should care deeply about the well-being of Iran. A North Korean Christian should care deeply about the well-being of North Korea. Of course, such Christians must obey God rather than men and will sometimes have to go against the government, but they do so not because they hate their country, but because they love King Jesus more.

For those of us who live in America, we ought to love this country. Many of us who are Christians do not like what this country has become in recent decades, but we still often have a great love for the country. I don’t like that my country kills babies in the womb, has said that they have redefined marriage, and has tried to allow men to play in women’s sports, but I still love this country and pray for it.

It is not true that Christians should avoid politics. We ought to embrace politics and be informed politically as well. We need to know what is going on in our culture and in our time and the best way to be salt and light in the culture.

Next time, we’ll start looking at what Protestants say about Catholics on the gospel and how we get that wrong.

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