Category: Apologetics

Book Plunge: The Bible and the Ballot Chapter 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Book Plunge: The Bible and the Ballot Chapter 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Book Plunge: The Bible and the Ballot Chapter 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Book Plunge: The Bible and the Ballot Introduction

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

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

So let’s start with the introduction.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Book Plunge: Beyond the Salvation Wars Chapter 9 Part 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I look forward to reading that book.

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

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

Book Plunge: Beyond the Salvation Wars Chapter 9 Part 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Book Plunge: Beyond the Salvation Wars Chapter 9 Part 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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)