Author: Nick Peters

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 8 Part 2

What does justification do? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So what does justification do for us? In this section, Bates says it’s not just something declarative. Yes, we do become a new reality when God justifies us, but that justification does result in good works that are included in the justification somehow. From what I gather, what he is saying is that the justification of our persons results in us being the creatures capable of doing the good works that form in us the character of Christ.

In other words, what we call sanctification, Bates thinks is found in justification still. I am unsure how he sees sanctification then in the text and perhaps this is in another book, perhaps even the one I recommended he write in the chapter on salvation. Bates does think that we do not need a divide between justification and sanctification. It could be that sanctification is included within the activity of justification.

This section is worth quoting in length:

In sum, at least three problems exist with regard to the traditional Protestant distinction between justification and sanctification in an individual’s order of salvation. First, it is not biblical, since there is radically insufficient evidence in Scripture that these are inseparable but qualitatively distinct benefits attained in the Messiah. Second, in Scripture personal justification cannot be restricted to a judicial declaration of innocence but rather involves liberating ontological change that extends into resurrection life and behavior, including bodily actions. In fact, Paul says that actual behavior, deeds, will form part of the basis of an individual’s final justification. Third, Paul nowhere intends to describe an individualized order of salvation in the first place with regard to justification, but he does describe the collective church’s vindicated position in the king as a whole. Justification is a corporate benefit that belongs to the church; individuals come to experience this benefit only conditionally if and when they become united to the king.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 3930-3939). Kindle Edition.

Once again, one of the major problems that we have here is the idea of individualizing the text. (If anyone has done any research into this large history to see where this individualization started to be dominant in interpretation, I would love to know.) Bates says that this is not so, including in the Romans 8:29-30 passage. The benefits of being in Christ are only applicable assuming that someone is in the group that is loyal to Jesus. If you cut yourself off from Jesus through outright apostasy or regular unrepentant sin, then you do not get the benefits.

Now some of you reading this might be wondering about what role the righteousness of Christ plays in all of this. Is it not the case that Jesus gives us His righteousness in exchange for our sinfulness and He paid for that on the cross? How one is made righteous was an area of divide between Protestants and Catholics and again, Bates has a different answer.

But that’s for next time.

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

Book Plunge: Beyond the Salvation Wars Chapter 8 Part 1

How does salvation come about? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

In this chapter, Bates starts off by saying that the mistake that took place in the Reformation was that both Catholics and Protestants made the debate over justification by faith. Bates holds that this is a true doctrine, but it is not a doctrine of the gospel. It is instead and effect of the gospel. It’s not that justification by faith is true, therefore the gospel is true, but rather the gospel is true, therefore justification by faith is true.

He says Protestants have typically seen justification as a declaration. God says a man is righteous and so he is. Catholics have instead seen it as a process with a man needing to live a virtuous life. I would like to say on my side that I think all sides agree that it is God who makes us righteous and also that all of us should be striving to live virtuous lives.

Bates from the Protestant perspective brings up Romans 8:29-30.

29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

First, he says that his model says that this should not be individualized. It does not mean then that every individual that is A is automatically B, C, and D as well. It is saying that God calls a group whereby he does A to them and then if they remain in the group, B, C, and D follow.

He also notes that sanctification does not show up in this at all. He says that it is put there because it is thought that first off, good works cannot be a part of justification. However, good works will be a fruit of justification and so after a person is justified, they will do good works. Then, that person must be made holy and so I take it that Bates thinks that this means those good works are part of sanctification.

Bates says that this distinction first started with Melanchthon, Luther’s associate, but that Calvin really took it off towards where it is today.

But what about a text like 1 Cor. 6:11?

And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Bates points out something that if one is looking for the order of salvation here should be immediately apparent. It is not in the right order. Santification comes before justification and also, I note it looks like if the people have already been justified, they have also already been sanctified.

He also disputes Romans 6:19 as a proof text.

I am speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations. For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification.

Here, he says Paul is speaking as a pastor and saying if you live the way you ought and abandon sin, holy lives will be the result. He is not talking about the order of salvation. Thus, the two main pillars Bates says do not hold up.

But is justification simply a declaration?

We’ll look into that next time.

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

Book Plunge: Beyond the Salvation Wars: Chapter 7

Are we eternally secure? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

The interesting fact about this question is everyone regardless thinks we should live the same way.

Christians have nearly always affirmed that it is necessary for an individual who has become a Christian to persist in faith over the remainder of that person’s life in order to attain final salvation. It is not enough to have had “faith,” however we might define pistis, but then to cease.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 3134-3136). Kindle Edition.

So you have someone who says they were a Christian and then lost their faith.

Calvinists: They were never really a Christian to begin with.

Arminians: They lost their salvation.

Both sides think you’re lost either way. Both sides also are going to be saying that if you’re a faithful Christian, you will live faithfully. That’s why I really think the question here comes down to trust and what is the basis of trust and both sides should say grace, and I suspect both sides majority would say grace.

Something interesting reading Bates is that this is where he does say the path takes a more individualistic turn, and that really makes sense. Bates does not contend that the whole community is likely to fall away. Instead, it will be some within that community who will fall.

Really, this is one chapter where there wasn’t much new that you won’t hear elsewhere in my opinion. I like Bates’s work, but when I personally gave him my final thoughts, I did say there is one big problem I had in this chapter. It is not a content problem, but a pastoral one.

If you tell people that you think they can lose salvation, and I am not disputing that, you will inevitably have readers who are concerned that they have done that. I have talked to several people who had been convinced that they had committed blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. I think about people who are in Celebrate Recovery and try to be Christians but are struggling with issues of addiction. What about a teenage boy who is struggling with masturbation and/or pornography?

Granted, realizing that they could be cut off could get them to shape up, but also they need to know where the grace of God is present in their lives. How is God with them in the midst of their struggle? Does the man who has fallen into the trap of watching pornography again need to fear he has also disappointed God?

Bates’s book is commendable on many levels, but this is one area of the book where a pastoral perspective was definitely needed. If anything, I think Bates should actually write a whole book on this topic. There should be a book on practically living allegiance, dealing with setbacks, wrestling with moral issues, and learning how to accept grace and forgiveness in your own life. After all, these questions of salvation should not just be academic endeavors, but lived ones as well.

Next time, we’ll look again at the order of salvation.

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

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

Does regeneration come first? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Years ago, I remember thinking that something about Calvinism seemed odd to me. It looks as if God in the system regenerates someone, and then at that point that person repents. That seemed out of order. Looking at Bates’s work, I see he has the same concern.

Bates finds the evidence for the idea of regeneration coming first lacking. He starts with Grudem who goes to John 3:5 stating that one must be born of the water and of the spirit. Like Bates, I am unclear how this addresses the point. It says nothing about regeneration at all nor does it mention faith.

Next is John 6:44 and 65. These state that no one can come to the Father unless they are drawn to Him. An Arminian could say the exact same thing. There is nothing saying if the drawing is prior to faith or if it is simultaneous with it.

Bates then says that:

Scripture and early Christianity consistently describe humans as having sufficient free agency to respond to the gospel. As Alistair McGrath puts it, “The pre-Augustinian theological tradition is practically of one voice in asserting the freedom of the human will.”  Libertarian free will was everywhere presupposed in the early church prior to Augustine’s development of monergistic compatibilism in the fifth century AD.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 2991-2995). Kindle Edition.

This could very well be, but at this point, I would like to have seen some citations of the Fathers. That being said, McGrath is a serious scholar and I am inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.

In Colossians 2:13 we are said to be made alive in Christ. Bates will deal with this later on when he gets to the idea of imputed righteousness. At this point, order is not talked about. What is being said is that if we are in Christ, we are made alive. As Jesus said “Because I live, you shall live also.” (John 14:19)

Overall, Bates says none of the regeneration texts say anything about a pre-faith conversion.

As for the idea of the will being bound, Bates says that a monergistic idea is not presented in church history until Augustine. There seems to be an accepted idea of freedom of the will. I think he brings up a good point here in that we should always make sure we are not reading a theological system back into the text that could be foreign to the text.

Unfortunately, this is difficult for all of us because as soon as we come to a passage like 1 Thess. 4:17, we read into it debates we have today about the idea of a rapture instead of asking first “Were the first century Christians asking about this?” We read a text like Genesis 1 expecting it to tell us how old the Earth is without asking “Did the Jewish readers think that was the purpose of the text?” It’s always good to try to put yourself into the shoes of the audience.

We move on to chapter 7 and eternal security next.

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 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)