Bates takes Sproul, MacArthur, and Piper to Task on the Gospel
In the third interview with Matthew Bates on his new book, Salvation by Allegiance Alone, I questioned some of his assumptions regarding the gospel and how we use Jewish resources such as Josephus and Maccabees to understand the meaning of pistis. Here's one quote:
"Piper is allowing systematic concerns about what would be better for us to override first-century meanings."
Check it out, and leave comments: https://academicblog.marketing.logos.com/defending-allegiance-alone-part-3-of-bates-hot-seat-interview/
Comments
-
Well, he was going great, until he had to bring in some 4th century theology. Just can't seem to stay in the 1st century.
A king on the right hand of God. And the disciples discuss who should occupy Jesus' left side. Hmm.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Meh.
Furthermore does this not belong in christiandiscourse?
0 -
When FL are making the post it is allowed because it's advertising in the guise of a blog post.
Everett Headley said:Meh.
Furthermore does this not belong in christiandiscourse?
0 -
Everett likes to meh. Back in the good old days in Readers Digest, there was a lot of humorous meh'ing, usually with flowered hats being chewed on.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
I may not totally agree with Bates on everything he says, but I do believe obedience is important to salvation since Jesus became the author of eternal salvation to those who obey (since He himself had to learn obedience). If obedience isn't important then why even bother to learn it? I'm looking forward to reading this book.
DAL
0 -
Are you suggesting Back issues of Reader's Digest for CP Denise? That would be a boon source of illustrations and anecdotes for speakers. No doubt though some of the younger ones not familiar with flowered hats being chewed upon will respond with some modern version of meh'ing.
Denise said:Back in the good old days in Readers Digest, there was a lot of humorous meh'ing, usually with flowered hats being chewed on.
0 -
Well he's laughable.
0 -
Disciple of Christ (doc) said:
No doubt though some of the younger ones not familiar with flowered hats being chewed upon will respond with some modern version of meh'ing.
[:)]
Tavis is probably wondering how we made it from allegiance to eating flowered hats. He's a good guy.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Do we really need such a click-bait-y title as "Bates takes Sproul, MacArthur, and Piper to Task on the Gospel"? Perhaps the issue isn't so much how click-bait-y the whole "<blank> takes <blank> to task on <blank>", but that discussions on soteriology have been so widely and broadly debated for centuries that to simply assert one view has taken another widely established view "to task" would seem rather, dare I say, ignorant.
0 -
Since you asked:
1. Do we really need such a click-bait-y title as "Bates takes Sproul, MacArthur, and Piper to Task on the Gospel"?
Probably you don't. Whether there is a general need, probably not. Though, that general question of need could permiate human conversation for generations.
2. Perhaps the issue isn't so much how click-bait-y the whole "<blank> takes <blank> to task on <blank>", but that discussions on soteriology have been so widely and broadly debated for centuries that to simply assert one view has taken another widely established view "to task" would seem rather, dare I say, ignorant.
Perhaps. But then perhaps not. Christianity is chock full of major reversals of centuries-long theological theories. It's not likely, we now have successfully achieved the correct answer. Ergo click-bait.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
FL very much has a marketing centred approach to everything they do so it's not surprising the use this tactic on a blog that is essentially a marketing channel target to a specific group of users of the software and potential customers of the company.
I'd prefer they turn down the marketing a little bit an focussed more on open, accurate communication with their customers but as a business they are free to choose their strategy of attempting to engage customers.
Kevin Wang said:Do we really need such a click-bait-y title as "Bates takes Sproul, MacArthur, and Piper to Task on the Gospel"? Perhaps the issue isn't so much how click-bait-y the whole "<blank> takes <blank> to task on <blank>", but that discussions on soteriology have been so widely and broadly debated for centuries that to simply assert one view has taken another widely established view "to task" would seem rather, dare I say, ignorant.
0 -
I'm very much enjoying the discussion here
0 -
Tavis Bohlinger said:
I'm very much enjoying the discussion here
Thanks for being a good sport Tavis. Despite my comments about the marketing aspects I actually do think the LAB does bring some interesting topics to the table.
0 -
Kevin Wang said:
...to simply assert one view has taken another widely established view "to task" would seem rather, dare I say, ignorant.
indeed, couldn't agree more. The title is over dramatic, making Bates' NP approach sound daring, a new reformation - and yes, ignorant in that none of the named theologians would ever exclude works as the primary proof of true belief. And MacArthur? Do you remember the brouhaha over "The Gospel According to Jesus"?
0 -
The book is in! Read it, examine it and hold fast what is good 👍 Who knows, it might stir your thinking 💭 🤔
0 -
Tavis Bohlinger said:
I'm very much enjoying the discussion here
Tavis, I echo Disciple of Christ's words: thank you for being a good sport about this.
The great irony of my being critical of your wording in titling this thread lies in that I now regret my own choice of words in my post. I should not have used the word "ignorant," as it is far too strong and negative for Christian discourse among brothers and sisters. For that I apologize.
From what I've read of "Part 3" of the Bates interview, it would seem to be another soteriology influenced by (and overemphasizing) Christus Victor. While I do agree that many proclamations of the Gospel in mainstream evangelicalism downplay Christ's ascension to the throne (if not ignore it altogether), that doesn't mean Protestants do not see Christus Victor as an important part of the work of salvation (Berkhof's Systematic Theology, p.404, Horton's Christian Faith ch.16).
In reading "Part 3" of the interview, I suspected Bates to be heavily influenced by NT Wright, and the suspicion was confirmed in glancing over the other two parts of the interview. That's what made me so "sensitive" to the forum thread title. Far from Bates taking the Reformation-based soteriology to task, Bates has just added his contribution to the ongoing conversations evangelicalism has been having over NPP and Wright's soteriology. Additionally, for a post from an academic blog to use click-bait-y titles would seem counter to expected "academic discourse" (as undefined as that may be).
0 -
Kevin Wang said:Tavis Bohlinger said:
I'm very much enjoying the discussion here
Tavis, I echo Disciple of Christ's words: thank you for being a good sport about this.
The great irony of my being critical of your wording in titling this thread lies in that I now regret my own choice of words in my post. I should not have used the word "ignorant," as it is far too strong and negative for Christian discourse among brothers and sisters. For that I apologize.
From what I've read of "Part 3" of the Bates interview, it would seem to be another soteriology influenced by (and overemphasizing) Christus Victor. While I do agree that many proclamations of the Gospel in mainstream evangelicalism downplay Christ's ascension to the throne (if not ignore it altogether), that doesn't mean Protestants do not see Christus Victor as an important part of the work of salvation (Berkhof's Systematic Theology, p.404, Horton's Christian Faith ch.16).
In reading "Part 3" of the interview, I suspected Bates to be heavily influenced by NT Wright, and the suspicion was confirmed in glancing over the other two parts of the interview. That's what made me so "sensitive" to the forum thread title. Far from Bates taking the Reformation-based soteriology to task, Bates has just added his contribution to the ongoing conversations evangelicalism has been having over NPP and Wright's soteriology. Additionally, for a post from an academic blog to use click-bait-y titles would seem counter to expected "academic discourse" (as undefined as that may be).
👍👌
0 -
If Bates is indeed taking Sproul, MacArthur, and Piper to Task on the Gospel he would really blow a gasket if he decided to engage with Charles Ryrie or Zane Hodges.
While important this is very much an internal discussion between people who pretty much agree on the big picture anyway.
0 -
Hi Kevin, no need to apologize: I completely understand where you and others are coming from. But thank you for your kind words.
Having read Bates' book, 1) the Christus Victor argument is an interesting one, that I wish now that I had broached the question; and 2) I think you are spot on regarding his reliance upon NTW to set up an overarching plan of redemption.
Regarding click-baiting, I'll be more careful in the future. The content of these interviews is what really matters, and I'm happy to see all of you engaging with the ideas and authors so constructively.
Tavis
0 -
Travis,
Thanks for your most gracious reply. I really do enjoy reading your blog,
0
