Category: Apologetics

Book Plunge: Beyond the Salvation Wars Chapter 5 Part 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So how does Bates sum this up?

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

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

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

We shall continue next time.

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

Book Plunge: Beyond the Salvation Wars Chapter 5 Part 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Book Plunge: Beyond The Salvation Wars Chapter 4 Part 5

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

In wrapping up his look, Bates says that he sees four problems in Catholicism today:

In my view, Catholic dogma wrongly suggests that the community of the justified (and any individuals therein) must be marked out by things other than Spirit-led allegiance to the king in at least four ways: penance, holy days, acceptance of the whole dogma, and baptism.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 1780-1781). Kindle Edition.

Penance is the idea of something needing to be done beyond seeking forgiveness. Trent even says that one cannot receive forgiveness by faith alone. Penance must take place. About this, Bates says that:

Yet these dogmas about penance do not accord with Scripture or the teachings of the apostles. The Catholic bishops at Trent wrongly believed penance to be biblical because commands in the Bible to “repent” (Greek metanoeō) had been mistranslated in Latin as “do penance.” The Council of Trent’s “Decree on Justification” cites Matthew 3: 2, Acts 2: 38, and Revelation 2: 5 in support of “do penance,” but the original Greek, as opposed to the Latin Vulgate, actually says “repent” in these places. The meaning “do penance” is not possible for the Bible in the way Trent intends, since the system of penance and absolution by a priest was not in place until after the Donatist crisis in the third century. Jesus and the apostles lived in the first.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 1796-1801). Kindle Edition.

And going further:

There is no evidence that Jesus or the apostles commanded penance or absolution by a human priest within the framework of the new covenant— especially since, apart from Jesus as the high priest, there is no evidence for human priests of the new covenant at all in the earliest Christianity represented by the New Testament writings.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 1812-1814). Kindle Edition.

As for holy days, my understanding of Bates is that the problem is not the holy days themselves, but making their observing as mandatory.

To reinstate universally required holy days— as Catholicism does— is to reinstitute an old-order written-rule system, to turn back to the stoicheia. This plays into sin’s hand. Such rules create false walls in the one true church, and those who rely on those walls rather than or in addition to allegiance to the king compromise the one-justified-family benefit and result of the gospel. Only Spirit-based allegiance in the king allows the flesh to become obedient to the deepest intentions of the law of God.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 1842-1846). Kindle Edition.

I do not need to expound on the others, but I want to give Bates’s final statement in full.

A close reading of Paul’s letters shows that personal justification is not part of the gospel, but rather is one of its leading benefits. Faith is not part of the gospel either. Saving faith is best understood as an allegiant response to the King Jesus gospel. Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith is purposed to show that there is one, and only one, righteous family and this family is the family that gives allegiance to King Jesus. I’m persuaded that Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants are not equally and fully correct in their doctrinal determinations. I’ve sketched common Protestant problems and have also shown how the doctrine of justification in Galatians should pressure the Catholic Church toward specific reforms in dogma. Nevertheless, each is equally and fully Christian inasmuch as each upholds and responds with allegiance to the royal gospel. In our overall attempt to move beyond salvation wars of the past and present, in this book’s final chapters we will return to the question of how justification is presently modeled among Catholics and Protestants, and then we will seek to remodel it. But if our remodeling is to help

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 1885-1893). Kindle Edition.

Next time, we’ll look at a position that some Protestants hold to. Is baptism saving? What role does Bates see as baptism holding?

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

Book Plunge: Beyond the Salvation Wars Chapter 4 Part 4

Does Bates have a better reading of Galatians? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Bates wants us to consider several different points about the reading of Galatians.

First off, when it comes to the gospel being compromised, it does not refer to the content, but to the results. He specifically cites Galatians 1:6-9. They likely did agree that Jesus is King. They did not agree in how one is supposed to live in light of Jesus being king.

Second, their main dispute was how one displays allegiance to Jesus. They included following the Law as necessary to show allegiance. Bates does not say in the book how he would view someone who is Messianic Jewish and chooses to live by the law, say in dietary restrictions, not because they think it salvific, but because of a sort of connection they experience with their tradition.

Third, the troublemakers were not arguing a works salvation per se. They were arguing a works of the law salvation. This is an important distinction since in the time of the Reformation, it would not be arguments about the Jewish Law, but about works in general.

Finally, this does not exclude good works. One should do good works, but that is not for the purpose of salvation, but they are done because the King commands them and they are the fruit of salvation. This is the epistle where Paul talks about the fruit of the Spirit after all.

Bates then applies this to Catholicism. One of the problems is that in Catholicism, an individual is not allowed to have private interpretation of Scripture.

As the Catholic Church’s most authoritative statement, Dei Verbum, puts it, “The task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church.”

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 1723-1725). Kindle Edition.

Bates says about this:

This puts the individual who is trying to assess the truthfulness of Catholicism in an awkward place. From the Catholic vantage point, no individual can make Catholicism’s fidelity to Scripture or history a criterion when testing Catholicism’s truthfulness, since neither

that individual nor any other has the right to authoritatively interpret Scripture or tradition in order to determine whether Catholic doctrine is in fact true. For Catholics, private individuals— whether laypeople, priests, Catholic, non-Catholic, or professional scholars— have no right to decide what Scripture, tradition, or Catholic doctrine truly means.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 1726-1731). Kindle Edition.

Bates’s problems with Catholicism are not that Catholics do not appreciate grace. He affirms that they do. All forgiveness is grace. It is not even the sacraments. One can fully hold to sacraments if they wish. The problem comes in the relationship the sacraments play to salvation.

A central Catholic error regarding salvation is the belief that the terms of true allegiance can be universally and officially mandated through a list of must-do and must-not-do commands via the sacraments for everyone.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 1760-1762). Kindle Edition.

He then says that:

Sacraments in general can be celebrated as helpful for the Christian life when their performative terms are not made mandatory for salvation. The traditional Catholic position is that the sacraments are absolutely mandatory, but as noted above, Lumen gentium has undermined this position by affirming that other Christian communions are somehow really “joined with us in the Holy Spirit” (§ 15).

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 1767-1770). Kindle Edition.

Catholics do not fall under the anathema of Galatians. Bates still considers them fully in the Christian faith. I can say that I also love my Catholic brothers and sisters, seeing as I meet with a number of them on Thursday nights to discuss Aquinas via Zoom.

Next time, we’ll wrap up this chapter.

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 3

Are we all family? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Galatians 3 speaks about how Abraham was given a promise. Abraham is normally Exhibit A. He’s the father of the faithful and he was declared righteous in the sight of God for believing the promise.

Bates contends we have misunderstood what the promise is. It is not justification by faith. That would make sense since according to Paul, Abraham was justified by his faith in his own lifetime. Why would the promise be that Abraham would have what he already had?

In Galatians 3: 8 the gospel that Scripture announced in advance to Abraham is not justification by faith but expressly all nations will be blessed in you. The gospel here pertains to the arrival of the Messiah as a fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham regarding his singular seed (3: 16).

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 1557-1559). Kindle Edition.

So what does this have to do with being in the same family?

We often talk about Jesus is the only way to God, but we really don’t talk a lot about what’s the way to Jesus. How does one come to be in the community of believers? If it is done in multiple ways, then there is not a common bond between us. You can be justified by faith or justified by the Law.

What Peter is doing in Galatians 2 then is creating a rift in the family by saying that if you were a Gentile, you had to live like a Jew. That was the way to show you were a part of the covenant people. Of course, pre-Christ, that would have been entirely correct. After Christ, you show you are a part of the covenant people by allegiance to Jesus.

Through the king’s loyalty to God and to God’s people the gospel creates one worldwide family out of the many nations. That is, the gospel does this when people give their allegiance to the king as a response to it. In Galatia, table-fellowship rules that reinstituted distinctively Jewish “works of the law” practices were splitting that one people into Jew and gentile factions, denying the truth of the gospel in its one-family purpose and result. In other words, justification by pistis is not the gospel (nor part of it) but rather is a key doctrine that safeguards the unity of the one true church. It shows that those who create false dividing walls, such as Jew and gentile, within the one true Jesus-is-king church are massively and dangerously in the wrong.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 1568-1574). Kindle Edition.

Side topic on this from me personally, this is my problem with many people on the dispensational side of things. There is often seen as being that God has a plan for the Jews and then God has a plan for the Gentiles, but if Romans 11 is true, God has one covenant people only. Christians do not replace the Jewish tree. We are grafted into it.

Next time, we’ll see what Bates has to say about what he calls, the sad irony of justification.

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)

Book Plunge: Beyond the Salvation Wars Chapter 4 Part 1

Does Galatians destroy Catholic soteriology? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Ah, Galatians. It’s a favorite for many Protestants to go to. Some passages seem exceptionally fitting, such as if an angel from heaven delivers another gospel, let him be accursed. That seems to work well for Mormonism. Of course, we all know the big message of Galatians is justification by faith and that works aren’t required for salvation and thus, Catholicism has a big problem.

What if those are misunderstood ideas?

I will argue that Galatians does forcefully critique Catholic soteriology, but not in the way described by classic Protestantism. Meanwhile, a close reading of select portions of the letter also shows why Protestants have been misapplying justification by faith.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 1368-1370). Kindle Edition.

So could Protestants have the right text but the wrong argument? Could we also be misunderstanding Galatians and have our readings read more in light of the Reformation? Could the reformers have been misreading the book themselves in light of their present situation?

Bold claims.

Bates says we Protestants tend to read the book like this:

1. the gospel is being perverted in Galatia by certain troublemakers (1: 6– 9; 2: 5, 14);

2. the principles of grace alone and justification by faith alone were being compromised by the troublemakers who were seeking instead to be justified by works (2: 16; 3: 11; 5: 2– 4);

3. these troublemakers were seeking to be justified by works, since they were trying to earn personal salvation by keeping the law perfectly (3: 10; 5: 3);

4. but personal faith is uniquely and exclusively saving (5: 6).

In light of 1, 2, 3, and 4, the temptation to conclude the following is powerful:

5. personal justification by faith alone is the gospel or at least central to it.

Once this conclusion is drawn, another becomes inexorable:

6. Catholics are preaching a different gospel because they violate the principle that a person is justified by grace alone through faith alone, so they are cursed and cut off from Christ by Scripture’s own standard.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 1386-1398). Kindle Edition.

That does sound quite fair to how many read it. If it is true on all the counts, then it would follow that Catholicism is teaching another gospel. However, Bates has already said that he thinks that Catholics and Protestants both agree on the gospel. So what is going on here?

Paul describes the gospel otherwise. The conclusion that “justification by faith” is central to the gospel is an inference drawn from a certain customary way of reading Galatians. It probably is a false one. When Paul and other New Testament authors actually describe the gospel’s content, they never mention personalized justification by faith, let alone make that the centerpiece. Instead, they consistently give a royal narrative (akin to the ten events in part or in whole [listed in chap. 2]) about the Messiah (e.g., Rom. 1: 2– 4; 1 Cor. 15: 3– 5).

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 1406-1410). Kindle Edition.

And we are back to points made earlier. It is the royal message that is to be embraced. Once you embrace that, there will be outcomes that come from that which will include justification by faith. It sounds as if Bates is saying that justification by faith is the gospel, but saying that because the gospel is true, justification by faith is true. If the gospel is not true, then there is no justification by faith.

Okay, but what if we read the text in light of Romans?

Furthermore, if we use Romans to help interpret Galatians, Paul does not say that justification is the gospel but rather that the righteousness of God is revealed in (or through) the gospel (Rom. 1: 17). The difference is crucial.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 1412-1414). Kindle Edition.

For Bates, the righteousness of God is not the gospel. It is the gospel that reveals the righteousness of God. This can be further understood since Jews knew long before Christianity that God is righteous. It would not make sense to say “Good news. God is righteous.” Jews would be thinking “Yes. That is good news, but we already knew that.” The difference is it is revealed to the world when Jesus takes the throne.

Does Scripture show this?

Peter states that personal receipt of forgiveness is conditioned on an adequate response: “all those who give faith unto him receive forgiveness of sins through his name” (Acts 10: 43 AT). Potentially all can receive it, but only those who perform the “faith” (pistis) action actually attain personal forgiveness. Performance of the pistis action is the condition.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 1430-1433). Kindle Edition.

Bates contends that what this boils down to is the usage of the Greek word pistis, the word we normally read as faith.

Which is a good point to pause for now. We’ll pick up next time.

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

Book Plunge: Beyond the Salvation Wars Chapter 3 Part 4

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

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

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

So what does Bates say?

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

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

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

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

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

But now, let’s get back to Bates.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)