Tag: salvation

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bates says about works that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Book Plunge: Beyond the Salvation Wars Chapter 4 Part 2

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

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

Bates meanwhile says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Response to The Gospel Coalition on Beyond The Salvation Wars

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

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

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

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

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

So let’s start.

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

Completely misunderstood the gospel?

Well, no.

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

The gospel is that Jesus the king

1. preexisted as God the Son,

2. was sent by the Father as promised,

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

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

5. was buried,

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

7. appeared to many witnesses,

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

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

10. will come again as final judge to rule.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He redefines faith?

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

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

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

If they believe that, why are they not saved?

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

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

Faith/Faithfulness

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

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

I have also written about this here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moving on:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Book Plunge: Beyond The Salvation Wars Chapter 3 Part 1

What do we have right and wrong about the Gospel? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

In an earlier post, Bates said these were the parts 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.

He then asks these rhetorical questions with answers:

Is there anything among the gospel’s ten events with which a Catholic, Orthodox, or major Protestant denomination— past or present— would disagree? No. Is there anything here that Bible-oriented Protestant pastoral leaders who write on salvation would fail to affirm as true— folks like John Piper, R. C. Sproul, John MacArthur, and Paul Washer? No. Would the pope, metropolitans of the Orthodox Church, or the archbishop of Canterbury disagree with the truthfulness of any of these events? No. Are there any Lutheran, Reformed, or Anglican doctrinal confessions that would fall afoul of these ten? No.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Location 925). Kindle Edition.

And then goes on to say that while there are some minor streams and rogues that would deny some of these that:

All these streams identify any such rogues as deviant— even heretical— precisely because these ten events are agreed-upon truths within all major Christian bodies.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 928-929). Kindle Edition.

As I said, this book mainly will focus on the Protestant and Catholic divide, but let’s look at this for now. I recently had someone considering Mormonism who was telling me that Christians cannot agree on the gospel. I brought up this work which includes these points. These are not disputed by any of the groups.

I then got asked the question if baptism saved. Now here’s something to consider. I do not think so, but I have Catholic friends who would not for a moment doubt my Christianity because of that. Do I think it’s important to be baptized? Yes. Do I think that if you know the need and are not doing so without a good reason you are being disobedient to an extent? Yes. (For instance, if you have a severe physical condition that could make baptism difficult, that would be understandable. For me, it took a long time because of an intense fear of water like that, but when I saw the importance of it, I still did it.)

So tomorrow, I will devote a post to what Bates has to say about Catholicism. I do not consider myself an expert in that field, so I will be relying on what he has to say about it. Yes my Catholic friends, there will be a section on what he has to say about Protestants getting the gospel wrong also.

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

Book Plunge: Beyond The Salvation Wars Chapter 2 Part 2

What is the gospel? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Okay. So if we’re going to critique Catholicism and Protestantism, we need to be sure we’re on the same page. So what is the gospel? Bates lists ten parts 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.

Some people will look over this thinking something seems to be missing that we normally speak of.

There is nothing here about justification or forgiveness in any way. Does Bates not care about those? Of course, he does, but he says they are not in the gospel message itself. Those are truths that exist BECAUSE of the gospel message. Because the gospel is true, forgiveness is available. Because the gospel is true, you can be justified.

This would be the same for the news about the Caesars. Good news, a new Caesar is on the throne! That was enough. That was the news that was good. What he would do would be a result of the good news that he was on the throne. For some, it would be good news. For others who opposed him, not so much.

So how do you respond to a king? This gets us into what faith is. As one ignorant atheist I saw say today speaking about Christians:

They call their beliefs ‘faith’ because, well, there’s not one single shred of evidence. Not one. Otherwise it would be called FACT.

Of course, atheists say this without one single shred of evidence that this is what was meant in the biblical world and do not see the irony. Now they could go out and get a Lexicon and look up the word pistis and see what it means. Nah. That requires too much work.

So what does Bates say?

The royal context makes it highly probable that pistis, traditionally translated as “faith,” is better understood as fidelity, loyalty, or allegiance here. (And this is true for all the occurrences of pistis in Rom. 1: 1– 3: 26.) 16 That is, Paul is emphasizing not mental trust in Jesus’s ability to effect forgiveness, but rather external behavior—“ the obedience characterized by fidelity”: embodied, allegiant obedience to a king.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 820-823). Kindle Edition.

Which would entail if you are showing allegiance to King Jesus, that will include seeking forgiveness for what you have done. This will also then entail political action. It requires a changed life. Hence, the debate about faith vs. works becomes moot. If you are allegiant to Jesus as King, then good works WILL follow. Those works aren’t done so you will be allegiant, but because you are allegiant already.

We’ll continue on to chapter three next time.

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

Book Plunge: Beyond the Salvation Wars Chapter 1

What is the battle going on? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I want to thank Dr. Matthew Bates for sending me a copy of his latest book in electronic format. He and I have had a good relationship since my podcasting days and I consider him a friend. When he has a new book coming out, he contacts me and several others and I always make sure to help him out.

Something I really like about Bates is how easy he is to read and also how needed he is. He writes about doctrines that the popular audience needs to hear and he also writes about them in a way that they can understand. He is an excellent scholar, but he speaks on the popular level. As one in PhD work myself now, it is one of my goals to make sure I never get so academically inclined that I leave the average person behind.

Anyway, his latest book comes out today is Beyond the Salvation Wars. In it, he talks about issues between Catholics and Protestants on the nature of the gospel and the doctrine of salvation. Much of what is said about Catholics could apply to Orthodox Christians, but for many of us in America at least, the former two groups are the most prominent. This is not a criticism. It’s just the way the situation is.

He starts off this first chapter taking us back 500 years in time to the killing of Ulrich Zwingli. This is something I suspect most Catholics today would look back on and not see as a good move. What is interesting for us today is how the two accounts we have of his death go.

The Catholic one talks about the praise given to God for delivering the wicked men into their hands so he could die at their hands. The Protestant one talks about how he looked to God alone and rejected the aid of a priest. It talks about how Zwingli was told to call on the Mother of God and the saints, but Zwingli rejects any help but Christ.

Today, we find all of this strange. I meet regularly with several Catholics on a Zoom call to discuss Aquinas. We get along fine. We know we disagree, and it’s cool. We would never think of excluding one another from salvation and especially never taking up arms and going to war against one another.

So why did they?

For them, this was all about salvation and these people were keeping people from salvation. Catholics and Protestants both thought the other side was doing that. In that case, some of them did think it was acceptable to stop people using violent force if necessary to ensure the eternal salvation of souls. We don’t agree today for the most part, but we can see that for them, it made sense.

As Bates says:

We nod our heads “yes” on Sunday

morning: Jesus is indeed worthy. But we have more pressing concerns: Can you believe what Khloé Kardashian just posted on Instagram? Can Patrick Mahomes orchestrate another comeback win? What’s on Netflix tonight? We declare our passion for the gospel but then wear out our couch cushions. Meanwhile, Catholics and Protestants of the sixteenth century were willing to die for a correct understanding of salvation.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 193-196). Kindle Edition.

And this is Protestants and Catholics both.

Bates then goes on to list reasons for hope in unity eventually and then says:

Protestants cannot responsibly say that Catholics believe an individual is justified by good works instead of God’s grace, for they certainly believe no such thing. Grace is required all along the way by both Catholics and Protestants. Grace, however, is configured differently by each.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 319-320). Kindle Edition.

What is good to see about this is a book of critique like this from a Protestant perspective, would likely list all the things the author thinks the Catholics get wrong. Bates does list those, but he lists the mistakes of those of us who are Protestants as well. He then lists one major problem seeing as a lot of debates hinge on justification and sanctification.

(“ faith/ fidelity”) to the king from the ground up. The individualized distinction between justification and sanctification within classic Protestantism is false. That is, the division between a person’s justification and sanctification has an insufficient scriptural warrant and obscures how Scripture actually describes the salvation process.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 432-434). Kindle Edition.

No. He won’t leave that hanging. He will defend it throughout the book. Bates wants us to be clear on what the gospel is and why it matters. It is only when we know what we are talking about that we can reach unity.

Next time, we’ll look at the second chapter to see what he has to say about the gospel.

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

Book Plunge: The Pauline Paradox — Chapter 3

What makes Paul hard to understand? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

No Christian should say Paul is easy to understand. Our own Scripture in 2 Peter says that Paul writes many things that are hard to understand. It would be foolish to think we can do so easily. (Kind of like internet atheists do thinking they can just read the Bible and not bother studying it and know everything about it.)

119 Ministries at least agrees that Paul is hard to understand, but they think different things are hard to understand.

For instance, many Christians believe Paul taught that God’s Law has changed. However, it is impossible to come to that conclusion if you’ve read what the Old Testament says about the Law: “I will not violate my covenant or alter the word that went forth from my lips” (Psalm 89:34). Surely God himself cannot be wrong, so that means the traditional understanding of Paul must be revisited. Many also believe that Paul called the Law of God bondage (Galatians 5:1). But the front of the book says that the Law of God brings liberty (Psalm 119:44-45).

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (p. 29). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

But as we say in an earlier post, the Law has changed. Note also that the Psalm never says the Law is unchanged. It says the covenant is, and yet even in Jeremiah and Hebrews we see talk of a new covenant. There is some degree of change going on.

As for Psalm 119, why should this be a problem? There is always freedom in following the path of God. Yet at the same time, when God gives the new path in Christ, one is to follow that path and not the old.

119 Ministries also goes on to talk about the tension that is often presented in Paul:

Are you feeling the tension between the traditional interpretation of Paul and what he actually lived and taught? There’s more: Paul says that he serves the Law of God (Romans 7:25). Why serve a Law that is supposedly ended or made void? Paul called the Law “holy and righteous and good” (Romans 7:12). He said he “delights” in the law of God (Romans 7:22). He taught that the Holy Spirit leads to obedience to God’s Law while the carnal nature of man is opposed to God’s Law (Romans 8:3-8). And this is only in Romans!

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (p. 31). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

Yet Romans 7 is a notoriously difficult passage to deal with and 119 Ministries gives no indication that they understand that. My contention is that Romans 7 is not Paul being autobiographical. We see no hint of him struggling in Philippians 3 to follow the law and no one doubts that is autobiographical. Also, Paul says that once he was alive apart from the Law, but when could an orthodox Jew like Paul say he was ever not only apart from the law, but apart from it and alive?

No. A better understanding is that this is speaking as Adam, who was referred to back in Romans 5. In this, once the law came to life for him, he was filled with a desire for coveting, which was seen as the sin in the garden, desiring wisdom for oneself apart from God. Had he kept the law, it would have meant life for him.

As for the verses from Romans 8, here they are in the Complete Jewish Bible.

For what the Torah could not do by itself, because it lacked the power to make the old nature cooperate, God did by sending his own Son as a human being with a nature like our own sinful one [but without sin]. God did this in order to deal with sin, and in so doing he executed the punishment against sin in human nature, 4 so that the just requirement of the Torah might be fulfilled in us who do not run our lives according to what our old nature wants but according to what the Spirit wants. 5 For those who identify with their old nature set their minds on the things of the old nature, but those who identify with the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. 6 Having one’s mind controlled by the old nature is death, but having one’s mind controlled by the Spirit is life and shalom. 7 For the mind controlled by the old nature is hostile to God, because it does not submit itself to God’s Torah — indeed, it cannot. 8 Thus, those who identify with their old nature cannot please God.

Notice that Paul says the Torah could not by itself bring righteousness. The idea in these passages goes along with the Law written on the heart in Romans 2. Because of the Spirit, we can keep the Law of God in the sense that we were meant to. Again, this is something 119 Ministries never addresses. Are we meant to offer sacrifices, for instance?

Unfortunately, 119 Ministries doesn’t really look at the best resources and ironically, in a chapter about misunderstanding Paul, demonstrate that they do indeed misunderstand Paul.

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

Book Plunge: The Pauline Paradox Chapter 1

How do we start this one? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Give credit where credit is due. This book starts with an excellent opening.

Fact: every pastor, theologian, and Bible teacher on the planet holds on to doctrinal error to some degree. An honest teacher will readily admit the possibility they are in error on some things. It’s foolish to think that we, or anyone else, has everything figured out or has all of the answers.

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (p. 7). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

Indeed. We all do. I would like to think everything I teach here is correct, but I am sure it isn’t. While I would like to always be right, I would hate it if you think I am always right and don’t need to check up on what I say. Something I have learned in the PhD program here is the importance of teachability. My professors would agree with my natural intellect, but I think they also admire that I am willing to go to them for advice despite that. There is always something to learn.

Salvation is received by faith in Yeshua (Ephesians 2:8). We are not saved by anything we do. Our works cannot and never will have any causal relationship with our status as saved sons and daughters of God. However, though no causal relationship exists, works and salvation do correlate. The Bible is very clear on this (James 2:14-26). Works do not save us, but a true saving faith will produce works. We strive to be honest, give to the poor, etc., because of our salvation, not for our salvation. The same holds true for every commandment of God. Keeping God’s commandments is evidence that we have faith in God—that we believe his Word and follow it. Again, obedience to God’s commandments is the evidence of our saving faith, not the cause of it. It is correlational, not causal.

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (pp. 7-8). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

This is again an excellent point. I would hope that 119 Ministries would not see what they teach as an essential. For instance, if you do not observe the Sabbath on Saturday or if you are a man, get circumcised if you are not, then you are not a Christian. I am of the persuasion that if you are a Christian and want to follow the Law, suppose for instance being a Messianic Jew and having a deep respect for the tradition, then have at it. As soon as you make it necessary for salvation, we have a problem.

Everyone that has the Holy Spirit dwelling within them should always be in the process of learning. Everyone is both a teacher and a student in some capacity. The only thing we can do—and certainly should do—is to test others and ourselves to the Word of God. We should love being corrected. Correction humbles us and helps us to know our Father in greater depth. Those are both wonderful things.

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (p. 9). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

Again, another great statement. This is also why I ask people what was the last book they read they disagreed with. If you just read what you agree with and stay in your echo chamber, you will not do much learning.

Not too much further along, they quote Mark 7 in saying:

He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:

“‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rules.’

You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.”

And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is Corban (that is, devoted to God)— then you no longer let them do anything for their father or mother. Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”

Interesting in a book about the Law and what Jesus taught about it, they left out the following verses:

Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them.”

After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. “Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)

But that being said, their point is that the Pharisees were very wrong in their doctrine and that nullifying what Moses wrote is a very bad thing. Of course, I presented some questions about this in yesterday’s post. This assumes that when Jesus rises from the dead, the Mosaic covenant is still in play. I contend that the destruction of the temple in 70 AD shows that that covenant has been replaced with a new one where the sign of the covenant is not the Law, but faith in Christ.

That being said, there is not too much disagreeable in this part of the book. We’ll see if that holds up as we go on through the book.

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

Does The Gospel Have A Point?

Why should you bother being saved? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Yesterday, I wrote about how if learning is to be effective, students need to see the point of what they are learning. Somehow, the material must engage them. When that happens, I contend not only will they learn, but they will decide to strive to learn on their own.

Now let’s transition that to the gospel. Our goal with the gospel is to make disciples, but often we make converts instead. Unfortunately, the way that people do gospel presentations is often terrible.

Imagine a 25 year-old guy in apparently good health walking down the street and a Christian comes up to him to engage him. What is the question that is going to be asked that’s supposed to really make them think? It’s the same every time.

“If you were to die today, do you know if you would go to Heaven?”

Of course, to be fair, at least the evangelists are following this from the example in the book of Acts when the apostles went out and asked this question to….

Hang on.

No one in Scripture ever asked this question.

Not only that, but this was a culture that didn’t have health-care and scientific advancements in the field like we do. They were more familiar with death. They saw death on a regular basis.

And yet, this question never seemed to come up.

Now let’s go back to this 25 year-old guy who I am going to assume is not a Christian. He can be polite and listen, but this question will not engage him. Why? Because he’s thinking “I’m in good health. I work out. I eat right. I have no serious conditions. I’m likely to live a good and long life and will probably die in my 80’s or 90’s.

So you’re pretty much asking him about something that is likely to happen about sixty years from now.

It would be like asking him “Do you have enough money to retire right now?”

Well, quite likely no, but he’s working towards that and he’s confident that when he gets to that age he will be ready.

What else is going on in this man’s life?

Odds are, he’s thinking about his job, drinking with friends, having sex with his girlfriend or wanting to have a girlfriend to have sex with, watching some pornography, watching a football game with the guys on the weekend, etc.

What’s our evangelism strategy implicitly?

“Hi. I’d like you to consider devoting your life on this one brief conversation to something that is going to take away all the things in your life that you enjoy right now, but it will really pay off when you die about sixty years down the road.”

I can’t imagine why young people don’t jump on this message.

“But, Nick! The message is important! People have to do this! People have to know Jesus! People have to get saved!”

Agree entirely. The problem is, the person you’re talking to does not. You’re acting like he already embraces your position. If he agreed that it was as important as you think it is, he would already do it.

If we all did the matters that were important, our nation would be a lot healthier, most of us would listen to our parents a lot more, etc. No. We need something that gets us engaged in the matter.

I go walking every day now and I even walk around the Post Office on the days that I work. Why? Because I have an app where I earn points for walking and when I earn enough points, I cash them in and I get credit for the Nintendo Eshop so I can get some games that I really enjoy. Did I know I need to walk regularly and exercise before then? Yes. I do it now because there is a present incentive. I usually get in 10,000 steps a day at least. Generally, with other bonuses in the app, i get $10 every month to use.

Think about what you will do if you’re trying to impress a member of the opposite sex. You can do things you would not have done before just because there is an incentive. If a man becomes a father, he is more likely to have a better work ethic because there is an incentive. Consequently, a marriage dies down when it seems like there is less incentive to be devoted to the union.

So in talking to the guy again, we need to show him why he should become a Christian not just for the future, but for now. How does it benefit him?

“But Jesus never talked that way!”

He didn’t? Go look here. These are all times in the Gospels when Jesus spoke of a reward for those who are obedient to the Gospel. If you are talking about Heaven anyway, you are already using rewards to appeal to someone.

So one of my first starts would be to point to the reality of the gospel, meaning we have to talk about sin. People need to know that they’re truly lost. They need to know that they really need forgiveness.

Then we need to show them the reality of the resurrection. We need to show them that new life begins now. The gospel should never be seen as the antithesis of joy. We should be people of joy.

That would also include pointing out the meaninglessness of what people are engaging in. They’re only getting something temporary that won’t fill them overall. You can have sex with a different girl every week, but you’re just being an addict and women are your drug. You don’t really love them and they don’t really love you.

By contrast, Christians serve the God of sex and marriage and we should be in the forefront in those areas. Christians should have the best marriages of all and they should have the most passionate sex lives of all in those marriages. We should give the world something that they will be jealous of. After all, Paul wanted the Jews to be jealous of the Gentiles.

Sadly, we Christians are more known by what we denounce than by what we celebrate. We are described as puritan, which is false since the puritans were never the stick-in-the-mud types that we have in mind. They really were a joyous people and they wanted to make sure their marriages were fulfilling.

We should not be anti-intellectual at all. Lewis was the one who asked what it would be like if whenever anyone wanted to learn something in the academic world, the best mind in that area was a Christian. What if scientists were known as the best Christians? What if the best actors were Christians? What if the best athletes were Christians? What if Christians did the most popular songs, the best movies were written and performed by Christians, the best TV shows were produced by and starred Christians, and Christians produced the best video games?

As I type that I even wonder, “Why aren’t they already?”

This also does not deny Christianity is a hard path to follow, but it is also still a joyous one. We need to show that. If all we offer people is something that is likely to happen decades down the road, we are not going to get serious lifetime commitment from them. If forgiveness is not serious to them, salvation won’t be either.

We can do better.

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

Book Plunge: Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught Part 9

Is the good news barbaric? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

For people who claim to follow logic and evidence, evangelistic atheists like David Madison sure make emotional appeals. Consider how in this section he starts with talking about John 3:16. For him, it sounds nice at the start, but then it gets to judgment. Naturally, before too long he gets to the cross.

I do wonder why Christians aren’t put off by this barbaric feature at the heart of their theology. Does it bother you?

Madison, David. Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught: And Other Reasons to Question His Words (p. 66). Insighting Growth Publications. Kindle Edition.

Of course it does, because I know I’m in part responsible. It bothers me that sin is so evil that this is what it takes to redeem humanity. Madison sees it as bothersome, but for the wrong reason.

Another problem with John 3:16 is that it encourages religious arrogance, the assumption that “our religion is the one true religion.” That is, those who don’t believe in Jesus are excluded from the promise of eternal life. This means that the vast majority of humans have missed out on God’s love for the world. Tim Sledge has done the math: A few moments of simple analysis reveal that if we take the words of Jesus seriously, a clear majority of humanity is destined for an eternal address in hell. About 2.1 billion of the world’s 7.5 billion people alive today identify themselves as Christians—about one out of four—which leaves more than 5 billion people headed for hell. When you apply even a remotely similar ratio to previous millennia, according to the Gospels, an all-powerful, all-loving God created a world in which most of the beings made in his image are destined for torture—torture so extreme it would cause instant death in this mortal life.

Madison, David. Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught: And Other Reasons to Question His Words (pp. 66-67). Insighting Growth Publications. Kindle Edition.

There’s a lot here.

First, it’s odd to talk about a religion being arrogant for thinking they’re correct, when it’s not arrogant apparently to think that all religious believers are incorrect and the non-believers are. If thinking you are correct means you are arrogant, then everyone is arrogant. The reason you hold to any belief is you think you are correct in holding to it.

Second, I have read Tim Sledge’s book already, though I don’t know why I didn’t write a response to it, and see him as someone who messed up his own life, had affairs, and then lo and behold decided Christianity was false. That doesn’t mean his arguments are wrong, so let’s take a look at his claim. To begin with, most evangelicals don’t hold to Hell being a place of torture. Sledge still has a fundamentalist viewpoint.

Third, we don’t have the numbers on all of history and many of us don’t think that those who never heard are automatically hellbound. You can read here for instance. Sledge would need to actually show the numbers which we don’t have. Besides that, if he wants to take Scripture as the authority on this point, Revelation also tells us about a great crowd no man could number from all over the Earth.

Finally, what does this have to do with if Jesus rose from the dead? If you are unsure about the status of those on the outside, it seems strange to say you yourself will stay on the outside. If Christianity is true, it doesn’t matter if 1 person believes it or 10 billion people believe it.

Madison goes on to look at other New Testament passages on judgment and says:

These verses undermine the assumption that God’s love is the essence of the New Testament. The wrath of God, so prominent in the Old Testament, is right here as well. And anyone who reads the letters of Paul can easily pick up on his certainty that wrath is God’s default emotion.

Madison, David. Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught: And Other Reasons to Question His Words (pp. 67-68). Insighting Growth Publications. Kindle Edition.

Odd. I have read Paul’s letters several times and never thought that, but then again, I also do hold to impassibility so I hold that God does not have emotions. Basically, Madison’s argument is again “God is a judge and I don’t like that.”

By the way, these same atheists will complain about the problem of evil and then when God acts as a judge, they complain about that as well.

But no matter if 3:16 and 3:36 are the words of Jesus or simply the words of John, the author, the wrath motif is by no means rare in the teachings of Jesus. So, it’s no exaggeration to assert that his attitude was: Do what I say, or I will hurt you.

Madison, David. Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught: And Other Reasons to Question His Words (p. 68). Insighting Growth Publications. Kindle Edition.

Which presumes that man is innocent and God comes and says “Hey! You’re doing great! Now do what I say or suffer!” A better analogy is man is on death row waiting to go to the chair for his last moments and God is the governor who offers Him a pardon in return for loyalty.

He then has something to say about the parable of the sheep and the goats.

And isn’t it too bad that quite a few categories of sinners aren’t included in this list of those who deserve eternal fire? What about slave owners, child abusers, murderers, and rapists? It’s easy for religious doctrine to stumble over itself and get into a hopeless tangle. In John 3:16, we read that those who believe in the son of God win eternal life, but in Matthew 25, “inheriting the kingdom” is based on feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and visiting those in prison.

Madison, David. Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught: And Other Reasons to Question His Words (p. 70). Insighting Growth Publications. Kindle Edition.

Ah. Because Jesus didn’t give an exhaustive list, there’s a problem. Jesus is speaking to day to day people. Most of his audience would not have engaged in child abuse, murders, rapes, and even owning slaves. They would engage in the activities He did speak about.

As for the difference between John 3:16, an ancient Jewish mindset would not understand believing in YHWH and yet not living in obedience to Him. If you called someone Lord, you lived as Lord. If anything, this could be a way of saying that if you claimed John 3:16 and yet did not live it, then you did not really claim it.

The final objection he brings up in this chapter is about the coming judgment of Matthew 24-25, but since that’s the point of the next chapter, we’ll wait until then.

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