Tag: salvation

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)

 

Book Plunge: Beyond the Salvation Wars Chapter 8 Part 3

What about Trent on justification? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I know I said next time we would discuss imputed righteousness, but first, we have to discuss Trent on justification.

Martin Luther is well-known for his struggles in his fears of the righteousness of God. It is from him that we largely get the doctrine of imputed righteousness. Bates says that Luther compared it to being given a white garment to wear even though you are filthy underneath. When God looks at us, he no longer sees our sinfulness, but rather the righteousness of Christ. Calvin went on to declared double imputation where our unrighteousness is put on Christ. Bates then says it is ironic that those of us who hold to Sola Scriptura hold to a doctrine that is not spelled out in Scripture in imputed righteousness.

Bates says one issue today is that there has been no authoritative voice in Catholicism beyond Trent. Now, majority of Catholics recognize there are true Christians who have the Holy Spirit outside of the Catholic Church. I am sure this goes for the Orthodox Church as well as I remember my ex-wife’s priest when she was exploring Orthodoxy telling us we were both Christians while he knew I was decidedly not convinced by Orthodoxy. I fellowship with a largely Catholic group every Thursday night via Zoom to discuss Aquinas and my Christianity has never once been called into question.

I am thankful that we do live in a time where there seem to be better relations between Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox.

Bates goes on to talk about the causes of justification in Catholicism. The first is the efficient cause, that which brings it about. Here, Catholics and Protestants agree, that is God. The meritorious cause, that which had the value to bring about justification, is also agreed upon. That’s Christ. There is a disagreement on the instrumental cause, that through which salvation comes, as Protestants largely say faith and Catholics add in baptism, and Bates says not just baptism, but the faith of the church instead of the person being baptized. The final cause, the reason for salvation, is God’s glory, which is again largely agreed upon.

What about the formal cause? This is what causes a thing to be what it is. It is God in Catholicism who makes us just according to our capacities. A man has the moral category of being just. Second, it is not a participation in the righteousness of God. Third, not everyone receives the same amount of justification, and finally, the amount of justification we receive is in some way dependent on how we lived.

This is to be followed by good works. If someone commits a mortal sin, then they are cut off and must do penance to make up for it. This again is an area where Protestants largely disagree. While many like myself do not see all sins as equal, we do not see a category of mortal sins in Scripture and a requirement to do penance.

Chapter 10 of the book is largely a summation so next time, we will start to discuss the final chapter I will review, chapter 9. In this, we will get to Bates’s model of justification.

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

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 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 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 4 Part 2

How does Bates see faith? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Faith is one of the most misunderstood words in Christianity. A lot of atheists see it as belief without evidence, and unfortunately, a lot of Christians seem to agree with them. This hasn’t done the discussion any favors. I have written my own article on the meaning of faith here.

Bates meanwhile says:

I contend that Protestant-Catholic wrangling has been plagued by overly restrictive understandings of “faith.” How faith is used today or how related terms were used at the time of Protestant-Catholic split in the sixteenth century may or may not correspond to the Greek word pistis. What matters is the meaning of the ancient word pistis.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 1442-1445). Kindle Edition.

This is something we should all consider. We could be taking a first-century concept debated in 16th century thought and applying it with 21st century understandings. No wonder we’re so confused! Writing that sentence was even confusing!

The problem Bates sees is not the content of the gospel was disagreed with. In Galatians, you do not see Paul arguing for the resurrection of Jesus. You do not see him arguing for the deity of Christ. What you see him arguing about is more on how people live in light of those realities.

Peter’s behavior wasn’t moving toward or in alignment with the truth of the gospel. This suggests not a compromise in the gospel’s content but a compromise of the gospel’s lived effect, actualized benefits, or practical results. Peter had not compromised the gospel’s raw content but its theological truthfulness as this pertained to its behavioral outworking. In Galatians 2: 14 Paul uses “the gospel” in a part-for-whole fashion to refer to behavior that results from the gospel’s truth that affects the wider community.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 1532-1537). Kindle Edition.

Let’s acknowledge also that to some extent, we all struggle with this. We all claim the kingship of Jesus, and many times we live as if He is not the king. We live like we are the ones that have to maintain control in our lives. I am not at all endorsing frivolous living, but I am saying we should trust that the king cares deeply for His subjects.

So what this means is that the Galatians were living as if allegiance to Jesus was insufficient for salvation. Not only do you have to swear allegiance to Jesus, you have to undergo circumcision and follow the Old Testament Law. Paul is writing to tell them that the Law was always insufficient for salvation in itself. It was always by grace through faith. If the Law was sufficient, there would be no need for Jesus. The only reason you need to keep the Law for salvation then is if you believe the sacrifice of Jesus and swearing allegiance to Him is insufficient for salvation.

While there could have been parallels to some events in the time of the Reformation, we should not read Galatians as if it was written to deal with a 16th-century question. It is a 1st-century text for a 1st-century question. Of course, it has relevance for us today, but we must see what the relevance was for them first and then apply it today.

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

A Response to The Gospel Coalition on Beyond The Salvation Wars

How does the Gospel Coalition respond to what goes against their system? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I have been reviewing my friend Dr. Matthew Bates’s excellent book, Beyond The Salvation Wars, and I saw today he left a post about how The Gospel Coalition has left a very negative review saying he teaches a revisionist gospel.

The gospel is central to Christianity. Protestants and Roman Catholics have been reflecting on and debating the gospel’s content for centuries. However, Matthew Bates argues that most of Western Christianity to date—Protestant and Roman Catholic—has completely misunderstood the gospel.

Now my first thought is that TGC has reached such a level that if they go after you, I consider that a badge of honor. Looking at his Facebook post and seeing the comments, I concluded that I was right in that. Many people are saying similar sentiments.  But hey, I read books I disagree with. How about reading this review?

Reading this review reminded me of reading internet atheists who think the cosmological argument says that everything has a cause and then ask “Who caused God?” It was written by Harrison Perkins.

So let’s start.

The gospel is central to Christianity. Protestants and Roman Catholics have been reflecting on and debating the gospel’s content for centuries. However, Matthew Bates argues that most of Western Christianity to date—Protestant and Roman Catholic—has completely misunderstood the gospel.

Completely misunderstood the gospel?

Well, no.

Here is what Bates says is the content of the gospel:

The gospel is that Jesus the king

1. preexisted as God the Son,

2. was sent by the Father as promised,

3. took on human flesh in fulfillment of God’s promises to David,

4. died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,

5. was buried,

6. was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,

7. appeared to many witnesses,

8. is enthroned at the right hand of God as the ruling Christ,

9. has sent the Holy Spirit to his people to effect his rule

10. will come again as final judge to rule.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 734-747). Kindle Edition.

Which of these do classical Protestants disagree with? None. Roman Catholics? None. Orthodox Christians? None. The Gospel Coalition? None.

Since they agree on all of these, how can it be that they have completely misunderstood the gospel? The saying of the word “completely” is a problem for TGC. Had they just said that they misunderstood the gospel, that would be more understandable. For Bates, the problem is not that they have got the gospel wrong so much as they have included the benefits of the gospel as part of the gospel.

My analogy I use is from November of 2024 when whichever party you belonged to, the news would be “A new president has been elected!” A large number of people would say “This is good news!” A large number also would say “This is horrible news!” However, it would be a mistake to include Trump’s policies as part of the proclamation of him being the new president. His policies, like them or not, are a result of his being elected president.

In Beyond the Salvation Wars: Why Both Protestants and Catholics Must Reimagine How We Are Saved, Bates, professor of New Testament at Northern Seminary, claims that the traditional Protestant view of justification by faith alone and the traditional Roman Catholic view of justification by imparted righteousness, distributed through the Roman sacramental system, are thoroughly mistaken understandings of salvation. He attempts to set everyone straight.

A bait and switch has been done here. In the first paragraph, Perkins spoke about the gospel. Now he has switched it with salvation. Part of Bates’s claim is that salvation is a benefit of the gospel and not part of the gospel itself. Salvation is the response of humanity to the gospel. Bates does not disagree with justification by faith. As he says:

This doesn’t mean that justification by faith has been rejected. It means that justification by faith, while remaining a true doctrine, finds a better fit in our overall understanding of salvation within rearranged categories.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 1070-1072). Kindle Edition. (Emphasis mine)

Finally, if we are wrong on something, should we not want to be set straight? In all of our debates, should we not listen to the other side regardless to see if we are misunderstanding? I read books by atheists and other non-Christians regularly to make sure I am getting their positions right and to see if there is something I have misunderstood in mine.

Bates’s counterproposal is what he calls the “king Jesus model” or “gospel allegiance model.” In this paradigm, he argues salvation is by faith but redefines faith as allegiance to Jesus, which is primarily about our commitment to Christ as well as social and political action. Although belief must play some role in Bates’s articulation of faith, the emphasis is squarely on our works of allegiance to Christ as the way to receive gospel benefits. Bates’s gospel and his arguments for it have several significant flaws.

He redefines faith?

It’s hard to say that this is a redefinition when nowhere in this paragraph is a definition given of faith. What is faith? Is it belief? If so, then what about James 2:19?

You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

The demons know the content of the gospel. They do know that Jesus is King. That was part of their fear when Jesus came. They knew the judge had come. This would mean that demons also know that Christians are justified by grace through faith.

If they believe that, why are they not saved?

Because they do not honor Jesus as King. They will acknowledge He is king, but they will work against His being king. A democrat today could fully acknowledge that Trump is president and believe he won the election fairly, and still decide not to support him or his policies. A Republican could have done the same with presidents like Obama and Biden.

In the social context of the Mediterranean world of Jesus, faith did indeed refer to loyalty to a cause.

Faith/Faithfulness

“These terms refer to the value of reliability. The value is ascribed to persons as well as to objects and qualities. Relative to persons, faith is reliability in interpersonal relations: it thus takes on the value of enduring personal loyalty, of personal faithfulness. The nouns ‘faith’, ‘belief’, ‘fidelity’, ‘faithfulness,’ as well as the verbs ‘to have faith’ and ‘to believe,’ refers to the social glue that binds one person to another. This bond is the social, externally manifested, emotionally rooted behavior of loyalty, commitment, and solidarity. As a social bond, it works with the value of (personal and group) attachment (translated ‘love’) and the value of (personal and group) allegiance or trust (translated ‘hope.’)

p. 72 Pilch and Malina Handbook of Biblical Social Values.

I have also written about this here.

Throughout this work, Bates says the primary reason someone would reject his new articulation of the gospel is out of blind commitment to prior confessional traditions. He asserts, “All too often denominational leaders are more committed to actions and social politics that will reinforce their brand than they are to the truth” (2). In contrast, Bates promotes himself as “striving toward a truth-based unity for the future of the church” (2). He claims that his “gospel-allegiance model seeks to expose the truth about how salvation happens according to Scripture and early Christian history” (3).

Blind commitment? I don’t think he says so at all. This is a mischaracterization and unfortunately if anything, works against Perkins since he is one who seems to hold to his own personal commitment as Bates says. There is no idea of self-reflection on this. Nothing in here says “And yes, we should be examining ourselves and our commitments and making sure we are not holding them for the wrong reasons.”

I have a personal saying that if a person cannot conceive that they can be wrong in anything, I have no reason to think that they are right in anything.

So let’s look at the three points that Perkins mentions here.

Is it true that some leaders are often more committed to an ideology than they are to truth? Who among us would say otherwise? Has every denominational leader out there has somehow avoided this human tradition?

Does Bates think he is striving towards a truth-based unity for the future of the church? Unless Perkins can somehow do mind-reading, then let us take Bates at the benefit of the doubt until we are shown otherwise. He has the well-being of the church in mind with this. Does his allegiance model hope to show how salvation takes place in Scripture and early Christian history? Again, the same problem.

The trouble is that Bates doesn’t escape his own prior theological commitments. As the endnotes show, he relies prominently on a certain strand of revisionist New Testament scholarship. At least since E. P. Sanders, there has been a revisionist trend among New Testament scholars such as James D. G. Dunn, N. T. Wright, David deSilva, John Barclay, and Scot McKnight to claim new insight that freshly demonstrates how the church has been seriously mistaken. Dismissing traditional theological arguments is nothing new within New Testament Studies. Yet dismissal of historical theology became much more acceptable during the controversy over the New Perspective on Paul over a decade ago, when N. T. Wright implied his work is the theological equivalent of a heliocentric model supposedly enlightening John Piper’s soteriological geocentrism.

Brace yourselves people. To argue his point, Bates actually cites scholars that agree with him!

Shocking! Horrid! How dare he cite people who agree with him to make his case?!

Now if this was all that Bates did in his book, I would be concerned, but he doesn’t. When I read an atheist book, I often check the bibliography first. Do they interact with those who disagree with them. I have generally found that, no, they do not. Bates does interact with disagreement. He interacts with MacArthur, Piper, Gilbert, Roman Catholic theologians, etc. He is up-to-date on the scholarship.

Also, let’s give something to TGC. It is so fascinating to see a group that wants to show the problems with the RCC position going after scholars like the above because they go against the traditional understanding that has been held for centuries. Apparently, TGC doesn’t like it if someone challenges tradition. The irony is so rich.

Bates hasn’t locked himself into any formal churchly confessional tradition. He argues that “the creeds are not a good stand-alone teaching tool about the gospel without an intervening reframing” (54). Presumably his reframing. Nevertheless, he embraces the arguments of a particular New Testament guild as the new standard of orthodoxy. This is most obvious in his chapter about justification in Galatians, where he takes the New Perspective on Paul interpretation of Galatians for granted. So, when confessional Protestants feel bruised by Bates’s accusations that they are neglecting exegesis for tradition, we need to see that he succumbs to the same problem of precommitments that he views as a fatal flaw in others.

Question for TGC. Could you know how to be saved from reading the creeds alone? No. You need the understanding of the background to them. You need the New Testament, and the Old as well. The creeds already assume you have a knowledge of what is in the New Testament and formulate it down to a simple message. That’s what creeds do.

Also, Bates does not take any position for granted. He argues for them and in previous books in this line of thinking has shown why he holds the positions that he does. If the problem is taking a position for granted, could we not say that TGC takes theirs for granted? If they say, “But we have argued in other posts for our position!” then the same applies to Bates and the objection fails. If they do take it for granted, then they have no grounds for going after Bates for doing the same.

As for feeling bruised, who really cares about how we feel about what someone says about our interpretation of Scripture? What Scripture says is the most important. Bates is challenging us instead to see if we are holding to tradition more than exegesis. Again, that TGC that takes such a strong stance against the RCC writes like this is incredible irony.

Bates presents himself as offering fresh theological structures to explain the gospel and how to receive its benefits. However, he regurgitates historically held ideas without owning them as such. According to Bates, the biblical teaching about election and justification reflects corporate rather than individual categories. He specifically labels this statement as erroneous: “The gospel includes the personal receipt of justification by faith” (56, emphasis original).

The problem for Perkins is that this is actually something that would be more sensible to the New Testament world. They were collectivists in that the good of the group was above the good of the individual. They held to a group identity of sorts, hence that Christians were supposed to identify as being in Christ.

Instead, he argues that God has predestined a group, namely those who choose to swear and practice allegiance to Jesus Christ as King, and has granted justification to that group. As he summarizes, “There is no valid scriptural basis for claiming that individual salvation truly begins with God’s predestining election of certain individuals before the foundation of the world rather than when a person responds to the King Jesus gospel with loyalty” (156). Individuals by their unbound free will must choose to become part of that group elected to receive salvation.

Actually, this is secondary. The real position is that God has predestined an elect one in Jesus the King. With the ancient mindset of group identity and not individualism, group identity makes more sense here.

This structure of election (perhaps uniquely applied also to justification) reflects a classic Arminian argument. It isn’t new, though it is selective. He follows some, but not all, historical Arminian arguments in claiming that faith itself (redefined as personal allegiance) is credited to us for the righteousness of justification, not Christ’s active and passive obedience imputed to us.

Ooooooh. Arminian arguments! *Shudder* Again, the irony here of a group that goes against the RCC going after someone for holding to a different tradition is rich. Unfortunately, they don’t understand Bates’s position. Bates is saying that our justification comes by trusting in Christ who did live that perfect life and by identifying with Him as our King, his obedience is imputed to us.

I’m not so much concerned that Bates is wrong by arguing Arminian positions (though I think he is) but that he’s rearticulating historically Arminian theological structures while claiming to argue for fresh, strictly exegetical positions that supposedly transcend any historical Protestant or Roman Catholic bounds. Bates seems either not to know the relevant historical theology or to assume his readers are unfamiliar with the history of these debates. I fear that a little of both is true.

They transcend Protestant or Roman Catholic bounds? How? It would need to be shown that Bates falls outside of both positions and it hasn’t been shown. Look again at the ten points of the gospel. Which does Bates deny? None of them.

Yet Bates diverges from the entire Western Christian tradition in its Protestant and Catholic understandings by positioning himself as consciously anti-Augustinian. For example, he affirmingly summarizes Justin Martyr as he rejects the idea “that we have inherited a sin nature from our parents that leaves us in total bondage” (132, emphasis original). Thus he discards the doctrine of original sin.

All Bates did was summarize what Justin Martyr said. His point was arguing against infant baptism. Note Perkins. You can summarize what a position is without agreeing with it. Also, in response to Joshua Neilsen on the post by Bates on Facebook, he says:

I don’t have time today to nuance my positions (it might take another book!) but I’ll say that I definitely affirm prevenient grace and that, contrary to the review, I affirm original sin. I favor the Eastern articulations for original sin (that tend to stress recapitulation) rather than Western (as part of our nature as passed on through intercourse via concupiscence).

Moving on:

Against Augustine, Bates also minimizes the discussion of grace at the beginning of or throughout the Christian life. He explicitly rejects the idea that “God must act alone in giving pre-faith assistance via regeneration” (169). According to Bates, “One opts to undergo baptism to be reborn because she or he has seen a more enlightened way and wants forgiveness and a new lifestyle. Regeneration or rebirth is what happens after we have seen enough of the light that we choose to believe, repent, and be baptized while expressing fidelity” (131, emphasis original).

Once again, amusing that Bates is going against the tradition of Calvinism. If you hold to Calvinism, this is convincing to you. If you don’t, it is not. In other words, this is only preaching to the choir.

Bates’s gospel amounts to us working our way into heaven, tinged with the prospect of forgiveness. He announces,

The gospel is not individualized justification by faith. Rather, the gospel is the power of God for salvation, because it announces the reign of Jesus as king. . . . He is the justified one who lives by allegiance so that we can be justified by allegiance too, and in so doing tap into his resurrection life.

The fact that Perkins speaks about working our way into heaven shows that he does think the gospel is about how we get to heaven instead of that Jesus is King. This is the kind of thinking I argue against regularly. It makes the goal of the gospel to be only what happens after you die instead of what is relevant to the world right now. Of course, hypothetically, he could be right on this, but this argument amounts to, “This position is wrong because it disagrees with my position which is right.” In essence, circular reasoning.

None of this also means that we work our way into righteousness hoping for the prospect of forgiveness. If anything, historically, Calvinists had a need to know they were elect by the works that they did. Christian proclamation has never had a problem with good works. Bates’s position here is classical. We do not do good works to hold allegiance to Jesus. We do good works because we hold allegiance to Jesus.

Notably, in Bates’s gospel, we receive justification by performing the same actions as Christ, stressing Christ as exemplar rather than Savior. If faith is justifying for Christ and for us in the same way, Bates’s model of salvation diminishes—if not displaces—Christ’s role as the mediator who saves his people.

False on all counts. We receive justification by trusting in the work that Jesus already did on behalf of humanity. Perkins has thoroughly misunderstood his position. In doing so, he is actually backing his claim about people strongly holding to their traditions prior.

At times, Bates invokes part of the Roman Catholic structure of justification, saying, “Allegiance-based good works performed with the assistance of the Spirit are part of the basis of our final justification” (233). At other times, Bates goes further than Rome in asserting that allegiance “is the sole instrument of justification” (235). Still, he rejects Rome’s sacramental structure as a way to provide grace and emphatically focuses on our works.

They are the basis but they are not the cause. They show that we are indeed treating Jesus as king. Also, if allegiance is faith, and if allegiance is the sole instrument of justification, then faith is the sole instrument of justification. By Perkins’s own standards, Bates upholds justification by faith alone. Perkins confuses the sign of our salvation with the cause of our salvation in critiquing Bates.

Now, I have no sympathy for the Roman sacramental structure. However, I can appreciate that their sacramentalism at least intends to provide the grace that enables those works needed for final justification. In contrast, Bates seems not to have a clear outline for how grace comes to sinners. He also seems to reject the idea that one can even know which good works that we need to do for final salvation. Accordingly, he claims we cannot develop a list of universally binding commands that God expects of us.

Then I do not know what book Perkins has been reading. It doesn’t seem to be the book I read. Did they even read the book or just do a word search for keywords? Bates give a clear view. We are justified when we proclaim Jesus as the righteous King risen from the dead and as a result of our justification and salvation, we live our lives in allegiance to Him.

Beyond the Salvation Wars is theologically presumptive and often dismissive. Bates’s goal is to unite Protestants and Roman Catholics around premises of salvation. Based on his work, there’s perhaps one question we can all ask in agreement: Can Bates’s paradigm for salvation even be considered a gospel at all?

So we conclude once again at the end with TGC confusing the gospel with salvation once more, showing no real interaction with Bates’s book. TGC really needs to take a long look in a mirror at what they have become. They are quite good at saying that which appeals to their crowd, but those on the outside are more and more rejecting them. TGC has effectively becomes its own papacy.

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