Beyond the Salvation Wars

by Matthew W. Bates

It’s widely known that since Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation (1517) a great controversy divided the Catholic Church, and the result was the beginning of the Protestant movement. The crux of that controversy was, and still is, the gospel story and how one enters into the Christian family. Matthew Bates’s Beyond the Salvation Wars: Why Both Protestants and Catholics Must Reimagine How We Are Saved attempts to build a bridge between Catholics and Protestants by focusing on the central message of Christianity. Without ignoring and while generously documenting the many areas of agreement, Bates zeroes in on those fundamental points of disagreement that continue the divide. He challenges all sides to take an honest look at the biblical and historical evidence of their respective positions, and concludes with a new proposal that offers hope for wider discussions toward agreement. Readers may not come away convinced at every point (just as I did not), but everyone will benefit from shining a spotlight on their own tradition and (hopefully) gain a broader view of and deeper respect for those on the ‘other’ side.

As for the points of agreement, Bates identifies 10 events affirmed by Catholics and major denominations of Protestants¹. Jesus the king (p 49):

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, and

10. will come again as final judge to rule.

These 10 events combine to make a “royal narrative…about the Messiah” proclaiming “the righteousness of God is revealed in (or through) the gospel (Rom. 1:17)” (p 76).

The rub comes when one speaks about how one enters the Christian faith.

According to Bates, “Catholic teaching obscures the gospel by its sacramental system, by not emphasizing Jesus’s kingship, and by conflating the language of gospel, creed, and faith” (p 54). He ably and amply unpacks each of these three problems. Protestants who are relatively informed of Catholic teaching will find little disagreement here. Protestants who are misinformed of Catholic teaching will benefit greatly and have opportunity to correct a caricatured understanding.

Protestants “pride themselves to be, as a matter of self-definition, those who have recovered the gospel over against Catholicism” (p 54). However, by shining such a bright light on certain aspects resulting from the gospel, Protestants sideline the basic message of the gospel. They have basically confused what a thing is with what a thing does. Specifically, forgiveness and justification by faith have been conflated with the actual content of the gospel rather than the benefits issuing forth from the gospel. Forgiveness, says Bates, is a result from allegiance to the gospel’s content, not part of the central gospel message. And he insists, “the Bible never clearly claims that justification by faith is part of the gospel at all, let alone its center or is essence—not even once” (p 57, emphasis original). This overemphasis on justification by faith alone or the personal benefits of forgiveness has resulted in a host of problems that confuse the gospel by driving a wedge between justification and sanctification; a distinction which the biblical authors do not make.

Importantly, Protestants fail to distinguish individual or personal justification over and against conditional fulfillment of future justification based on a lifetime of faithfulness or allegiance to Jesus as king. Bates puts forth a new model around which—he hopes—both Protestants and Catholics can unite. He calls this “gospel-allegiance,” which does include “justification by faith alone,” but he qualifies ‘faith’ as “embodied loyalty.”

Ironically, Protestants “who make justification by faith alone the centerpiece of the gospel—whether Reformers like Luther and Calvin or contemporary pastor-leaders like Piper and MacArthur—have created precisely the dividing wall in the church that Paul’s doctrine of justification seeks to avoid” (p 84). In fact,

“if Scripture is our standard, then the building of walls between gospel-affirming Christians is precisely the opposite of how the doctrine of justification by faith is supposed to function in the church. To justify means “to declare righteous,” but its purpose is not personal or even communal right-standing before God as an end unto itself. Justification’s practical ethical and pastoral aim is to safeguard the unity of the one “declared righteous” church as that is constituted when we confess allegiance to the one king together….In Scripture, a primary function of justification by faith (allegiance) is to guarantee that the one true church can never be divided into we-are-more-righteous-than-you-in-God’s-eyes parts or tiers” (p 85, emphasis original).

It is here that Protestants will feel the weight of the book. I found his arguments careful, clear, and extremely helpful and agree wholeheartedly with his views that forgiveness and justification are effects or results from the gospel and not part of the gospel in se (in itself). Readers will have to decide for themselves from the biblical evidence presented and argued. But decide we must!

When evaluating the term, ‘faith’ (pistis, in Greek), Bates’s careful research is especially keen. He intimates that saving faith is an action to be performed and not merely a mental acknowledgment of certain facts (on the latter, see James 2:19). Although “Protestants champion faith alone as the only saving response to the gospel…Scripture also explicitly denies three times that pistis alone effects justification…(James 2:24; cf. 2:17, 26)” (p 77). How the term ‘faith’ is used today is overly restrictive, according to Bates, and not in accordance with how the biblical authors used it. He contends that faith is “best summarized as trusting loyalty directed toward King Jesus or allegiance to the Christ” (p 78, emphasis original). The faith that saves and sustains is lived out through our bodies and throughout our lives! Just as with Abraham, whose actions worked to complete his faith, it is no less true for us that faith is consummated by a life of obedience (see James 2:21-24). “Saving faith is not merely mental but also bodily” (p 91). Anyone who divorces faith from works or drives a wedge between belief and corresponding behavior has failed to understand the biblical concept of ‘faith’ (pistis).

As an Anglican, there is one point of disagreement in the book. I also had one area of difficulty that I felt he could have been clearer.

First, in the chapter titled, “Is Baptism Saving?” Bates contends that infant baptism is not saving, and I would agree (p 165). But that does not entail water baptism is only symbolic and affects nothing in the baptized participant (regardless of age). I also agree that “repentance is the true instrument of cleansing” but not that it must come prior to baptism (p 113). I agree that an oath of allegiance is required for baptism to be “effective” unto salvation (p 124), but not that it cannot be performed as initiation into the faith. Therefore, arguing for a conscious, willing choice to be baptized (or circumcised?) is a non-starter for me.

Moreover, baptism and circumcision, contra Bates, are indeed paralleled in Col 2:11-13 and his belief they are not, though carefully and creatively argued, was unconvincing (pp 165). I will not entirely dismiss his arguments, and will go back to reflect further on Paul’s letter to the Colossians, but I was left with substantive questions.

In my essay, “The Sacrament of Baptism: Meaning & Significance”, I argued that:

Scripture shows a link between baptism and circumcision. Under the old covenant, parents presented their male child to the community for circumcision signifying a commitment to rear the child in the faith of that community (Incidentally, in patristic cultures females were represented by proxy in the male, who represented the entire family; see Gen 17:10-22). But note, physical circumcision meant little if a “circumcision of the heart” was not also evident (see Deut 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:4). We might say that while physical circumcision initiates, it was spiritual circumcision of the heart that consummates the participant into full covenant status. These ideas were carried through into the new covenant with the practice of baptism. In Colossians 2:11-12 Paul explicitly links together circumcision and baptism as visible signs of that invisible reality called spiritual circumcision of the heart (also, Rom 2:28-29).

What is not conveyed by God to a child in baptism is a saving faith that regenerates at the time of baptism.

What is conveyed by God to a child in baptism is a disposition or inclination to saving faith such that, at some point in the future, the child is capable of responding in faith to the gospel message because they have been immersed in a culture of faith (see Oliver Crisp’s excellent article, “Infant baptism and the disposition to saving faith”). All of this is what baptism means in the Anglican tradition.

While indications of a pattern or sequence of events taking shape when coming to Christ are found in the New Testament, a strict, prescriptive sequence will not do. I repeat what I’ve said previously.

As the central message of Christianity was first proclaimed in the early days of the New Testament, it was primarily adults who were hearing the gospel message and coming to faith, so naturally it made sense that faith precede baptism. However, we would do well to observe carefully that the order in which events occur varies. Consider: The first Holy Communion instituted by Jesus at the Last Supper was before his crucifixion and thus prior to the disciples’ faith being fully formed. Yet, Christ invited his followers to participate in the Supper (and likely before they were baptized, contra Anglican tradition; at least we have no record of them being baptized!).

Also, from Acts 8, 10, 19 we read the Spirit coming on some who were already baptized and had believed, while others were moved by the Spirit prior to belief and/or baptism.

We should not presume, therefore, that a pattern or order of events from the NT is necessarily a prescription to follow. This is not to say the Church should not respect trends in the New Testament and is free to roll out the sacraments in any order whatsoever. It is to say that the Church recognizes the priority of faith behind, before, and in all that the sacraments illustrate and entail.

To that end, and going back to the linkage between baptism and circumcision, it’s significant that Abraham was declared righteous by his faith and prior to his circumcision (Gen 15:6; 17:11). Paul even highlights this sequence in Rom 4:9-12 to insist that Gentiles are included in the promise by faith and that circumcision is explicitly not an instrument of salvation. Circumcision was a sign or a seal of the promise, not the means for attaining it. So too, with baptism.

Most importantly, if the old covenant had a place for incorporating children into the household of faith by circumcision, how much more shall the new covenant do so by baptism (Col 2:11-12)? We cannot ignore that entire households were baptized (Cornelius, Acts 10; Lydia and Philippian jailer, Acts 16; Crispus, Acts 18; Stephanus, 1 Cor 1) and there is no reason not to think that children were present and included.

Consider carefully how John Stott puts it:

What circumcision was to Abraham, Isaac and his descendants, baptism is to us. It is not only the sign of covenant membership, but a seal or pledge of covenant blessings. Baptism does not convey these blessings to us, but conveys to us a right or title to them, so that if and when we truly believe, we inherit the blessings to which baptism has entitled us …. But the receiving of the sign and seal, and the receiving of the blessings signified, are not necessarily (or even normally) simultaneous…The reception of the sign, although it entitles [participants] to the gift, does not confer the gift on them. They need to be taught the indispensable necessity of personal repentance and faith if they are to receive the thing signified. — John Stott, “The Evangelical Doctrine of Baptism”, Churchman 112/1 (1998)

Second, I found Bates’s emphasis on corporate over individual effects of the gospel convoluted. While he devotes two pages toward an explanation of part-whole relationships (pp 79-80; see also pp 61-63), I felt he could have been clearer, since there was a heavy reliance on corporate or group identity, almost at the expense of individual membership.

Throughout the book, reference is made to the plural ‘you’ in Paul’s writings to deemphasize individuals and to stress the collective whole. I don’t recall much discussion of the singular use of ‘you’ to show that the same group benefits apply to individuals. For example, twice Jesus uses the singular τις γεννηθῇ to say an individual must be born from above/again (see John 3:3, 5). Since speaking with Nicodemus privately and not in a group, it was only natural that Jesus use the singular. Likewise, when addressing a group of believers (e.g., in Ephesus, Galatia, et al.) Paul naturally uses the plural. I get the importance of group solidarity contra individual / personal emphases, but I wonder if Bates overplayed his exegetical hand on the use of the plural ‘you’.

While he agrees that group designation does not necessarily preclude Paul seeing salvation applying equally to individuals (see p 63), Bates repeatedly claims that the benefits of the gospel pertain to individuals on the condition of allegiance, to which I say, “but of course, since individual disciples are part of Christ’s Body and no one is ‘in’ unless they are committed to Christ!” True, our culture cherishes and even worships individualism, such that the salvation experience has become so personalized and customized that group identity into the Body of Christ has been eclipsed. However, Bates’s so heavily emphasized a group model that it seemed (to me at least) one could have a member-less group, which is far more of a platonic ideal than I could grasp (pun intended). In what sense, for example, can “groups and their benefits persist even when individuals enter and leave them” (p 145)? Seems to me at least one member is required for a group to “persist” or even exist! Otherwise, all we have are ideals or universals without any particulars. The chapter titled,”Why Election and Regeneration Are False Starts” is where group emphases are large and where I had the most difficulty (Bates’s argues for corporate election, not individual election).

Maybe I misunderstood him here, but I wonder: Perhaps an elementary summary of mereology (a subset of metaphysics explaining relationships of parts to whole and parts to parts within a whole) would have been helpful. Even better, a brief discussion of social ontology and group agency could have enhanced or clarified his arguments (see Joshua Cockayne’s most excellent article, “Analytic Ecclesiology: The Social Ontology of the Church”.)

Still, and despite these minor differences or struggles, Beyond the Salvation Wars is a most valuable read and a strong case for having open and honest discussions toward unity amongst Catholics and Protestants. Bates invites readers to “reimagine how we are saved” and he does this with a keen eye on Scripture and clear respect for the two traditions. Highly recommended!

---

1. Although Bates acknowledges that Orthodox belief also affirms these ten essentials, they are beyond the scope of his book.

For a thorough and deeply helpful critique of Bate's book from an Anglican viewpoint, see "Beyond the Salvation Wars and Discontents over Baptism" by Joshua R. Farris.