Matthew Bates has written a new book that seeks to modify the five solas. Faith alone, he proposes, should be understood as allegiance alone. I sat down with Bates recently to discuss the motivation behind his new book, Salvation by Allegiance Alone, in this first of a four-part interview:
https://academic.logos.com/salvation-by-faith-or-allegiance-alone-matthew-bates-in-the-hot-seat-part-1/
Tavis, this is fantastic! In my personal devotional study I happened across the compelling verse Is 52.7 I was struck by the Hebrew word yeshua and wondered if any scholar had published a work which examined the concept of salvation in first its Hebrew context and second its Christian context. I searched Logos and Amazon for candidates and also searched the forums to see if anyone else had asked a similar question. I thought to post my own question then demurred. This post is an answer to prayer.
Though it does not fulfill my own quest, it does put the question on a similar plane. Does anyone have any recommendations for works of substance that deal with this subject progressively by developing the Judaic notion of a God who saves and its fulfillment in the notion of a crucified Messiah? A comprehensive treatment of the word yeshua would be great. Great interview. Look forward to the next installments.
A very interesting article--at least for me. I've struggled for a long time with the cavalier attitude I see from many Christians regarding the place of obedience in the Christian walk. While very few I know say obedience is irrelevant, they do seem to feel it's way down on the priority list in comparison to "faith", and they tend to associate obedience closely with works. I have no desire to stir that pot of controversy (faith vs. works), but the word "allegiance" in the title of Bates book really caught my attention because I think there's a much stronger relational correspondence between the concepts of allegiance and obedience, than there is between faith and obedience--at least in the sense that many modern lay people in the church seem to think of these terms.
I don't know if Bates is on solid ground here or not and certainly don't feel qualified to make that determination. But I am interested in what he has to say, so I pre-ordered the book and will be watching for the responses I expect will come from other highly qualified scholars.
Thanks for pointing out this resource.
Rick,
It was you back in 2013 who asked a question paralleling mine https://community.logos.com/forums/t/68478.aspx. In your reading did you come across any resources you found particularly helpful that you can recommend to me? Appreciate it.
A very interesting article--at least for me. I've struggled for a long time with the cavalier attitude I see from many Christians regarding the place of obedience in the Christian walk. While very few I know say obedience is irrelevant, they do seem to feel it's way down on the priority list in comparison to "faith", and they tend to associate obedience closely with works. I have no desire to stir that pot of controversy (faith vs. works), but the word "allegiance" in the title of Bates book really caught my attention because I think there's a much stronger relational correspondence between the concepts of allegiance and obedience, than there is between faith and obedience--at least in the sense that many modern lay people in the church seem to think of these terms. I don't know if Bates is on solid ground here or not and certainly don't feel qualified to make that determination. But I am interested in what he has to say, so I pre-ordered the book and will be watching for the responses I expect will come from other highly qualified scholars. Thanks for pointing out this resource.
I wonder the same thing about some "Christians" who don't care about obedience. What exactly comes to their mind when the Bible tells us that Jesus is the source of salvation to them that OBEY? (Hebrews 5:8-9). Why sing trust and obey? Why ignore "work out your salvation with fear and trembling"? (Philippians 2:12). Why ignore the many "If" conditional statements found in Scriptures? (e.g. 1 John 1:7 - what if we don't walk in the light). Seems like they don't want to distinguish between works of righteousness they do and the works God has prepared for us to follow (Ephesians 2:10)...Or maybe they are content with a "demon's faith" (James 2:19), which is "faith alone" and alone it is, don't bother with other things that pertain to salvation. I'll be placing my order too. May be some aspects of the NPP are not so new and people just chose the easy way out.
Blessings!
DAL
When I saw the title, I initially thought the author was going down the Acts 2 / Joel 3/4 road. Choose the correct diety, trust, saved. That was the sequence for most of the nearby religions. But this book appears to be a 4th century ad takeoff.
To the obedience folks, you have to pose the question ... obey what (at 33-50 ad)?
Great question Denise, I would argue that the early church saw the OT as providing their ethical norms.
I don't have academic refs to hand (I'm about to put my three year old to bed) but a quick glance at the 'New Testament use of the Old Testament Interactive' pointed at James (arguably the earliest NT letter) will find 53 quotes and allusions to the Old Testament. I say this because I think it illustrates that, taking their que from Jesus, the early church saw the Old Testament scriptures as providing their moral and ethical norms of behaviour within the church community of faith. A pattern that continued throughout Paul, and the rest of the NT writers.
John Frame has some good stuff on this in his Doctrine of the Christian Life. Also, Michael Kruger has long argued that the early church had a canon of scripture to work from long before the closing of the NT canon, namely, the Old testament or Hebrew bible - and that is was the principles they found that helped them see what obedience as a result of faith looked like.
I don't know if that goes a way to answering your question, and that I haven't made a fool of myself by wading in out of my depths here!
Blessings, Liam
When I saw the title, I initially thought the author was going down the Acts 2 / Joel 3/4 road. Choose the correct diety, trust, saved. That was the sequence for most of the nearby religions. But this book appears to be a 4th century ad takeoff. To the obedience folks, you have to pose the question ... obey what (at 33-50 ad)?
Rick, It was you back in 2013 who asked a question paralleling mine https://community.logos.com/forums/t/68478.aspx. In your reading did you come across any resources you found particularly helpful that you can recommend to me? Appreciate it.
Rick, I was referring mainly to you and DAL (not a broad works theology). I was hinting that 'obey' usually demands something to obey. Mucho theologies end before Jesus, and then pick up the pieces with the church fathers and a written canon. A similar question can be posed up to 33 ad, believe in what? I don't have an answer to either question.
Thanks for your comment, Rick. I hope you enjoy the book, and the remaining parts of the interview when they are published.
A very interesting article--at least for me. I've struggled for a long time with the cavalier attitude I see from many Christians regarding the place of obedience in the Christian walk. While very few I know say obedience is irrelevant, they do seem to feel it's way down on the priority list in comparison to "faith", and they tend to associate obedience closely with works. I have no desire to stir that pot of controversy (faith vs. works), but the word "allegiance" in the title of Bates book really caught my attention because I think there's a much stronger relational correspondence between the concepts of allegiance and obedience, than there is between faith and obedience--at least in the sense that many modern lay people in the church seem to think of these terms. I don't know if Bates is on solid ground here or not and certainly don't feel qualified to make that determination. But I am interested in what he has to say, so I pre-ordered the book and will be watching for the responses I expect will come from other highly qualified scholars. Thanks for pointing out this resource. I wonder the same thing about some "Christians" who don't care about obedience. What exactly comes to their mind when the Bible tells us that Jesus is the source of salvation to them that OBEY? (Hebrews 5:8-9). Why sing trust and obey? Why ignore "work out your salvation with fear and trembling"? (Philippians 2:12). Why ignore the many "If" conditional statements found in Scriptures? (e.g. 1 John 1:7 - what if we don't walk in the light). Seems like they don't want to distinguish between works of righteousness they do and the works God has prepared for us to follow (Ephesians 2:10)...Or maybe they are content with a "demon's faith" (James 2:19), which is "faith alone" and alone it is, don't bother with other things that pertain to salvation. I'll be placing my order too. May be some aspects of the NPP are not so new and people just chose the easy way out. Blessings! DAL
If it helps we teach through our studies of various Greek and Hebrew texts that there are six words that if not inseparable at the least are necessary compliments; faith trust loyalty commitment devotion belief.
The way I have it is: Faith is composed of conviction, trust and obedience. A faith without obedience is dead; a faith without conviction is not good either and a faith without trust in God is also worthless.
Faith is more than just intellectual assent, although it includes that. Faith also is trusting completely in someone, relationally. Faith in Jesus is a relationship, trusting in Him and what He has done. Out of that comes a new life and heart which gives the person the desire to obey and live for Jesus. (this is never done perfectly, but is a process of growth).
The thread you provided the link for started out with four questions, which led to many responses and some additional questions. In order to avoid hijacking this thread on Bate's book, can you either go back in to my original thread and do a cut-and-paste there of the specific question you have in mind, or, start a new thread and paste the question in there? Then I'll peruse my smallish Logos library and my much smaller paper library for resource recommendations. Just be aware that I'm still on the journey and while my beliefs and convictions on topics such as creation and salvation are taking shape, I've got a ways to go, so the number and quality of resource recommendations I can make at this stage will likely disappoint.
Well said Keith. Faith has to be above and beyond demonic knowledge and intellectual assent (Ja 2:19).
This strikes me as not entirely new. The free book of the month last month, Misreading Scripture Through Western Eyes argues that the language of faith and grace was adapted from Greco-Roman patron-client relationships.
In the New Testament, for example, the word charis means “grace.” Pistis means “faith.” What we didn’t know until recently—what went without being said in Paul’s day—was that those two words together described the relationship between a patron and his or her client.In the Roman world of the New Testament, business was conducted through an elaborate system of patrons and clients. When we watch the movie The Godfather, we are seeing the modern remains of the ancient Roman patronage system. Like Marlon Brando who played the godfather in the movie, the ancient patron was a wealthy and powerful individual (male or female) who looked after his or her “friends” (clients). The complex world of Roman governmental bureaucracy, the far-reaching tentacles of the banking system (usually temples) and the pervasive and powerful grasp of the trade guilds made it impossible for ordinary craftspeople or farmers to conduct business on their own. They were entirely dependent upon their patrons. Like most unwritten cultural rules, everyone knew what was expected of a patron and a client, even though expectations weren’t engraved on a wall. Everyone knew a patron’s role was to solve problems for his or her clients, whether it was trouble with the local trade guilds, refinancing a loan or smoothing over tensions with city leaders. When Paul was staying in Thessalonica, it was reasonable to expect Jason to handle the “Paul problem,” which he did by asking Paul to leave town (Acts 17).In that world, an ordinary craftsman or farmer didn’t have the social skills or connections or wealth to negotiate with the various powerbrokers of a city. He would seek out an individual, a patron, to help. Marlon Brando captures the sentiment well. The local merchant wants help. The godfather says, “So you want me to do you this favor?” Both sides understand the agreement: the godfather solves the problem, and the merchant now must be loyal to the godfather and be ready to help if he is ever summoned. In the Roman system, likewise, the client couldn’t earn the “favor”; the patron showed “kindness” to help. Seneca, a philosopher from Paul’s time, said the patron and the client had a relationship, a form of friendship. The client was now a “friend” of the patron, but not a peer. The client was expected to reciprocate with loyalty, public praise, readiness to help the patron (as much as he could) and, most importantly, gratitude. This kind gift had strings attached. (All gifts in antiquity had strings attached.) Seneca called it “a sacred bond.” The recipient of the gift was obligated to reciprocate. Paul introduced Lydia to Christianity (Acts 16). She reciprocated by hosting Paul and his team at her estate.The language of patronage permeated everyday life. We know well the Christian terms grace and faith, but these were common before Paul used them. They were part of the language of patronage. When the patron gave unmerited gifts of assistance, these were commonly called charis, meaning “grace/gift.” The client responded with faithfulness to the patron, called pistis, or “faith.” We see that when Paul explained our new relationship with God, he used something everyone understood: the ancient system of patronage. Taken together, this vocabulary—so central to the Christian faith—means something different than the sum of its parts.
Here's the relevant clip from The Godfather.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPTAjNVvrYg
Okay, I consider myself part of the obedience folks.
I'm sure they had a lot more of Jesus's words in 33-50 AD through oral tradition than we have today through scripture.
Is this just a book recommendation, or a theological discussion too?
I vote, "Salvation is by Faith Alone."
This strikes me as not entirely new. The free book of the month last month, Misreading Scripture Through Western Eyes argues that the language of faith and grace was adapted from Greco-Roman patron-client relationships. In the New Testament, for example, the word charis means “grace.” Pistis means “faith.” What we didn’t know until recently—what went without being said in Paul’s day—was that those two words together described the relationship between a patron and his or her client.In the Roman world of the New Testament... OMITTED TEXT TO SAVE SPACE ... We see that when Paul explained our new relationship with God, he used something everyone understood: the ancient system of patronage. Taken together, this vocabulary—so central to the Christian faith—means something different than the sum of its parts. Here's the relevant clip from The Godfather.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPTAjNVvrYg
In the New Testament, for example, the word charis means “grace.” Pistis means “faith.” What we didn’t know until recently—what went without being said in Paul’s day—was that those two words together described the relationship between a patron and his or her client.In the Roman world of the New Testament...
OMITTED TEXT TO SAVE SPACE
... We see that when Paul explained our new relationship with God, he used something everyone understood: the ancient system of patronage. Taken together, this vocabulary—so central to the Christian faith—means something different than the sum of its parts.
Is this just a book recommendation, or a theological discussion too? I vote, "Salvation is by Faith Alone."
Thanks for the post! Very interesting interview. Keep it up on the academic blog!
This strikes me as not entirely new. The free book of the month last month, Misreading Scripture Through Western Eyes argues that the language of faith and grace was adapted from Greco-Roman patron-client relationships. In the New Testament, for example, the word charis means “grace.” Pistis means “faith.” What we didn’t know until recently—what went without being said in Paul’s day—was that those two words together described the relationship between a patron and his or her client.In the Roman world of the New Testament, business was conducted through an elaborate system of patrons and clients. When we watch the movie The Godfather, we are seeing the modern remains of the ancient Roman patronage system. Like Marlon Brando who played the godfather in the movie, the ancient patron was a wealthy and powerful individual (male or female) who looked after his or her “friends” (clients). The complex world of Roman governmental bureaucracy, the far-reaching tentacles of the banking system (usually temples) and the pervasive and powerful grasp of the trade guilds made it impossible for ordinary craftspeople or farmers to conduct business on their own. They were entirely dependent upon their patrons. Like most unwritten cultural rules, everyone knew what was expected of a patron and a client, even though expectations weren’t engraved on a wall. Everyone knew a patron’s role was to solve problems for his or her clients, whether it was trouble with the local trade guilds, refinancing a loan or smoothing over tensions with city leaders. When Paul was staying in Thessalonica, it was reasonable to expect Jason to handle the “Paul problem,” which he did by asking Paul to leave town (Acts 17).In that world, an ordinary craftsman or farmer didn’t have the social skills or connections or wealth to negotiate with the various powerbrokers of a city. He would seek out an individual, a patron, to help. Marlon Brando captures the sentiment well. The local merchant wants help. The godfather says, “So you want me to do you this favor?” Both sides understand the agreement: the godfather solves the problem, and the merchant now must be loyal to the godfather and be ready to help if he is ever summoned. In the Roman system, likewise, the client couldn’t earn the “favor”; the patron showed “kindness” to help. Seneca, a philosopher from Paul’s time, said the patron and the client had a relationship, a form of friendship. The client was now a “friend” of the patron, but not a peer. The client was expected to reciprocate with loyalty, public praise, readiness to help the patron (as much as he could) and, most importantly, gratitude. This kind gift had strings attached. (All gifts in antiquity had strings attached.) Seneca called it “a sacred bond.” The recipient of the gift was obligated to reciprocate. Paul introduced Lydia to Christianity (Acts 16). She reciprocated by hosting Paul and his team at her estate.The language of patronage permeated everyday life. We know well the Christian terms grace and faith, but these were common before Paul used them. They were part of the language of patronage. When the patron gave unmerited gifts of assistance, these were commonly called charis, meaning “grace/gift.” The client responded with faithfulness to the patron, called pistis, or “faith.” We see that when Paul explained our new relationship with God, he used something everyone understood: the ancient system of patronage. Taken together, this vocabulary—so central to the Christian faith—means something different than the sum of its parts. Here's the relevant clip from The Godfather.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPTAjNVvrYg
Interesting insight...except for the unmentioned part where Rome is the fourth iteration of the Beast, so any and all equivalencies of discipleship to that system ought to set off every alarm on the planet and send chills down your spine.
Just an FYI that the second instalment of the Hot Seat interview with Bates has just been posted on theLAB. Bates discusses the five solas and eschatology, amongst other things:
https://academic.logos.com/bates-in-the-hot-seat-pistis-as-allegiance-part-2/
The problem is that so many in our modern world understand faith as simply mentally accepting information and facts, but the Scripture understands faith as including commitment and allegiance. Wouldn't that somewhat relate to what Bonhoeffer calls "cheap grace". Would not this relate to what John MacArthur teaches about Lordship?
We instinctively know that loving our spouse is a multifaceted commitment, as is honoring our parents. Why should the possibility that "faith" in God might represent a similarly multi-faceted commitment seem surprising to so many?
The problem is that so many in our modern world understand faith as simply mentally accepting information and facts, but the Scripture understands faith as including commitment and allegiance. Wouldn't that somewhat relate to what Bonhoeffer call "cheap grace". Would not this relate to what John MacArthur teaches about Lordship?
Referencing 'the Scriptures' or a late 2nd-3rd century group of writings is key. I suspect the earliest version from the OT (Joel/Isaiah) and the entry logic for the end of the age (Acts 2) was a 'call' and 'be called' equation. 'Believe' or 'faith'. The end was at hand.
Because as David Platt has mentioned, people only like Kool-Aid gospel! Drink it sweet and then go about your own business without having to do anything whatsoever for the Lord. Hence the need for Grace only, sinner's prayer and just accept Jesus Christ into your heart to be saved nonsense.
People don't like responsibility and don't like to be held accountable so when you mention to them that they need to be obedient to God all of the sudden they tell you that you are trying to be saved by works...or that you belong to the "obedience group" as if obedience to God was some kind of disease. Why did Jesus even bother to learn obedience anyway? I guess it must not be that important and he just wasted his time obeying the Father.
I think you've hit the nail on the head here EastTN! I think part of the disagreement (IMHO) so far has been because people are looking at 'faith' from varying perspectives.
Using John Frame's tri-perspectival approach to theology, faith looks different depending on whether we are talking about how we respond to God and his revelation (the normative perspective); how we are to live in God's world (the situational perspective); or the kind of person God desires us to become (the existential perspective).
In this regard, I would argue that Bates is hung up on one aspect of the normative perspective, namely, allegiance. The issue is, as many have pointed out, faith is not less than simply trust in, or allegiance to, God, but it is certainly much more. From a Normative angle, faith involves allegiance, repentance, surrender, submission to God's Lordship, etc. Situationally, faith requires action, obedience, a pursuit of holiness and godliness, etc. Whereas, existentially, faith takes the form of love, delight, joy, dependence, hope in God, etc.
I am sure we could all list much more under each of these three headings, I hardly tried to be exhaustive. My point is that it is easy to take a huge concept like 'Sola Fide' (faith alone), zoom in on one corner of the tapestry of biblical teaching and then unintentionally claim that this corner is the tapestry. Regardless, of my views on the New Perspective(s), it appears (from his interviews at least) that this is exactly what Bates is in danger of doing. That said, I believe, it is a danger that we can all fall into, whether mainstream evangelical, conservative, liberal or otherwise.
This is the best paragraph I’ve seen on obedience, ever! I am stealing it!! [:D]
Welcome to the Logos forums where, despite this thread, we discuss software and resources for the software. We don't discuss theology as in this rather old, resurrected post. Glad you found a quote you like.
Maybe Jesus answers that best... “48 He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him—the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day.” - John 12:48.
