What do you think?
Rate this book
Salvation by Allegiance Alone: Rethinking Faith, Works, and the Gospel of Jesus the King
*The Jesus Creed 2017 Book of the Year**The Englewood Review Best Books of the Year*We are saved by faith when we trust that Jesus died for our sins. This is the gospel, or so we are taught. But what is faith? And does this accurately summarize the gospel? Because faith is frequently misunderstood and the climax of the gospel misidentified, the gospel's full power remains untapped. While offering a fresh proposal for what faith means within a biblical theology of salvation, Matthew Bates presses the church toward a new we are saved solely by allegiance to Jesus the king. Instead of faith alone, Christians must speak about salvation by allegiance alone. The book includes discussion questions for students, pastors, and church groups and a foreword by Scot McKnight.
365 pages, Kindle Edition
First published March 14, 2017
245 people are currently reading
1434 people want to read
About the author
Matthew W. Bates
11 books109 followersMatthew W. Bates (Ph.D., University of Notre Dame) is Assistant Professor of Theology at Quincy University. His main teaching area is the Bible and early Christian literature, especially the New Testament. He also teaches courses in Western Religion, Church History, and Christian Spirituality.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 137 reviews
October 16, 2017
This past summer I had the pleasure of sitting in on two Regent College Summer courses taught by Scot McKnight and Michael Gorman, who both gave strong in-class endorsements of the recent work, Salvation by Allegiance Alone by Matthew Bates. The central question addressed by Bates is how should one best translate the Greek word pistis which is commonly rendered ‘faith’ in our English bibles? Given the tense and lengthy Christian history surrounding the role of faith in salvation (particularly between Protestants and Catholics), Bates’ fresh investigation is to be welcomed.
The book’s central thesis is as follows: “With regard to eternal salvation, rather than speaking of belief, trust, or faith in Jesus, we should speak of fidelity to Jesus as cosmic Lord or allegiance to Jesus the king…it captures what is most vital for salvation—mental assent, sworn fidelity, and embodied loyalty” (pg. 5). While Bates recognizes that ‘allegiance’ does not work as a substitute for each instance of pistis in the NT, he contends that his term serves as a better overarching word to describe what is meant by the greek pisits. Here is a lesson in translation work, what happens when a word becomes so empty of meaning that it loses all significance? ‘Faith’ is often spoken about today by believer and non-believer alike with little merit behind it, and I find Bates’ argument for the substitution of allegiance rather convincing. He defines allegiance as having three basic dimensions: “mental affirmation that the gospel is true, professed fealty to Jesus alone as the cosmic Lord, and enacted loyalty through obedience to Jesus as the king.” (pg. 92).
I also find Bates’ description of the ‘full gospel’ to be clearer and more robust than any other I have seen to date. Admittedly, I have often struggled to reconcile traditional gospel presentations with some of the central claims of the gospels, notably, Jesus’ enthronement at the right hand of God (based on Ps 110:1—the most quoted OT verse in the NT!), and another often-neglected NT theme—that of the believer being “in Christ”—which, as Bates points out, is quite different from the classic ask-Jesus-into-your-heart prayer.
Bates’ own ecclesial location—as one raised in the Reformed tradition, conversant with its major contemporary thinkers, and yet, who received his training at a major Catholic university—makes him a fantastic conversation partner amidst the pistis debate. He stands on the shoulders of some greats—N.T. Wright (eight works cited!), Michael Gorman, and Scot McKnight (hence, their recommendations!), and also has his chief conversation partners too, notably, Reformed scholars Thomas Schriener and John Piper.
Chapter 5 “Questions about Allegiance Alone” is great stuff, focused on answering the (to-be-expected) questions of his critics, such as “If we are saved by allegiance alone, and allegiance involves concrete acts of obedience to Jesus the king, then does this not violate the principle that we are saved by faith, not by works?” (pg. 107). I will leave it to the interested reader to discover what Bates has to say on the matter.
Bates has aimed at a wide audience—both scholar and layperson—and has succeeded marvellously. His book is scholarly, readable, and very student and classroom friendly (chapter 9 provides a great step towards working out the practical implications of Bates’ claims). All in all, Salvation by Allegiance Alone is a fine piece of ecumenically-minded biblical scholarship, which I hope will attain the wide readership that it deserves.
The book’s central thesis is as follows: “With regard to eternal salvation, rather than speaking of belief, trust, or faith in Jesus, we should speak of fidelity to Jesus as cosmic Lord or allegiance to Jesus the king…it captures what is most vital for salvation—mental assent, sworn fidelity, and embodied loyalty” (pg. 5). While Bates recognizes that ‘allegiance’ does not work as a substitute for each instance of pistis in the NT, he contends that his term serves as a better overarching word to describe what is meant by the greek pisits. Here is a lesson in translation work, what happens when a word becomes so empty of meaning that it loses all significance? ‘Faith’ is often spoken about today by believer and non-believer alike with little merit behind it, and I find Bates’ argument for the substitution of allegiance rather convincing. He defines allegiance as having three basic dimensions: “mental affirmation that the gospel is true, professed fealty to Jesus alone as the cosmic Lord, and enacted loyalty through obedience to Jesus as the king.” (pg. 92).
I also find Bates’ description of the ‘full gospel’ to be clearer and more robust than any other I have seen to date. Admittedly, I have often struggled to reconcile traditional gospel presentations with some of the central claims of the gospels, notably, Jesus’ enthronement at the right hand of God (based on Ps 110:1—the most quoted OT verse in the NT!), and another often-neglected NT theme—that of the believer being “in Christ”—which, as Bates points out, is quite different from the classic ask-Jesus-into-your-heart prayer.
Bates’ own ecclesial location—as one raised in the Reformed tradition, conversant with its major contemporary thinkers, and yet, who received his training at a major Catholic university—makes him a fantastic conversation partner amidst the pistis debate. He stands on the shoulders of some greats—N.T. Wright (eight works cited!), Michael Gorman, and Scot McKnight (hence, their recommendations!), and also has his chief conversation partners too, notably, Reformed scholars Thomas Schriener and John Piper.
Chapter 5 “Questions about Allegiance Alone” is great stuff, focused on answering the (to-be-expected) questions of his critics, such as “If we are saved by allegiance alone, and allegiance involves concrete acts of obedience to Jesus the king, then does this not violate the principle that we are saved by faith, not by works?” (pg. 107). I will leave it to the interested reader to discover what Bates has to say on the matter.
Bates has aimed at a wide audience—both scholar and layperson—and has succeeded marvellously. His book is scholarly, readable, and very student and classroom friendly (chapter 9 provides a great step towards working out the practical implications of Bates’ claims). All in all, Salvation by Allegiance Alone is a fine piece of ecumenically-minded biblical scholarship, which I hope will attain the wide readership that it deserves.
December 3, 2024
M.W. Bates argues that "faith" is not the best translation for the Greek pistis in our culture because it fails to encapsulate the full force of the word used by the biblical authors. He thinks "allegiance" does a way better job. I tend to agree. For Bates, "allegiance" entails three things:
- First, belief in the Gospel narrative as constituting reality (for him, an 8-part story of the "career of Christ" beginning with his preexistence with God, climaxing in the enthronement of Jesus as king —a provocative claim for me — and ending in his return as judge). He also thinks the Apostles' Creed is an apt summary of the Gospel.
- Second, professed loyalty: a public and oral declaration of allegiance to Jesus as the King.
- Third, embodied fidelity: good works enabled by the Spirit.
His overarching argument is that allegiance to Jesus is what saved us, is saving us and will save us. He helpfully and sufficiently shows how the "saved-by-faith-not-by-works" is overly simplistic and problematic.
Within this framework, he touches on what salvation is (conformation of the individual soul to Christ-likeness (re-becoming an "idol" of God) and the renewal of all creation), eschatology, Reformed and Catholic articulations of justification and how faith as allegiance might be helpful in illuminating other theological puzzles.
For me, this book gives us a helpful theology for thinking about discipleship. Salvation (and pistis) properly understood rejects the common division between initial "belief" in Jesus for salvation and discipleship. Instead, it properly integrates them and centers the work of Christ, not the self.
I'm withholding one star not because I disagree with some things. Rather I felt that some of Bates' exegesis was not substantiated by the text (particularly his treatment (as interesting as it was) of the story of the Rich Young Ruler). Sometimes, Bates would also present theological suppositions with no footnotes or support and I had to "take him at his word", as it were. That said, the majority of his exegetical work was very faithful and helpfully corrective.
- First, belief in the Gospel narrative as constituting reality (for him, an 8-part story of the "career of Christ" beginning with his preexistence with God, climaxing in the enthronement of Jesus as king —a provocative claim for me — and ending in his return as judge). He also thinks the Apostles' Creed is an apt summary of the Gospel.
- Second, professed loyalty: a public and oral declaration of allegiance to Jesus as the King.
- Third, embodied fidelity: good works enabled by the Spirit.
His overarching argument is that allegiance to Jesus is what saved us, is saving us and will save us. He helpfully and sufficiently shows how the "saved-by-faith-not-by-works" is overly simplistic and problematic.
Within this framework, he touches on what salvation is (conformation of the individual soul to Christ-likeness (re-becoming an "idol" of God) and the renewal of all creation), eschatology, Reformed and Catholic articulations of justification and how faith as allegiance might be helpful in illuminating other theological puzzles.
For me, this book gives us a helpful theology for thinking about discipleship. Salvation (and pistis) properly understood rejects the common division between initial "belief" in Jesus for salvation and discipleship. Instead, it properly integrates them and centers the work of Christ, not the self.
I'm withholding one star not because I disagree with some things. Rather I felt that some of Bates' exegesis was not substantiated by the text (particularly his treatment (as interesting as it was) of the story of the Rich Young Ruler). Sometimes, Bates would also present theological suppositions with no footnotes or support and I had to "take him at his word", as it were. That said, the majority of his exegetical work was very faithful and helpfully corrective.
September 13, 2023
Salvation does not depend on cheap faith and a private acceptance of Jesus into your heart. Salvation only depends upon allegiance to Jesus the anointed king of the universe. This book contains several vital discussions of the biblical-theological background of this assertion. While I had already believed in this conviction before reading this book, Bates helped me to better articulate this belief. He helped connect some concepts that I had not connected beforehand. I would highly recommend this book to any church leader.
I am also surprised he did not engage with David deSilva's work on the patron-client language used in the New Testament to describe how God's gift *does* expect a proper response (unlike in our culture where a gift requires no response). I think this would have helped develop Bate's thesis more and goes along with the model of Hellenistic kingship and Roman conceptions of the emperor.
I am also surprised he did not engage with David deSilva's work on the patron-client language used in the New Testament to describe how God's gift *does* expect a proper response (unlike in our culture where a gift requires no response). I think this would have helped develop Bate's thesis more and goes along with the model of Hellenistic kingship and Roman conceptions of the emperor.
November 22, 2017
I am submitting a review for publication elsewhere so won't publish my full review here. These are more my off-the-cuff impressions. Suffice to say, I like this book a lot. Bates argues convincingly that Faith (Pistis) means allegiance to Jesus as the risen and reigning Christ. Therefore, understandings which problematize the relationship between faith and works miss the point. Loyalty to Christ demands we embody our faith by following Jesus' directives as our King.
So while moral codes do not save us, allegiance to Christ does. And this demands our loyalty to Him in everything.
This follows the trajectory of Wright, McKnight, Gorman and others but it is really refreshing for people overexposed to Reformed Evangelicals.
So while moral codes do not save us, allegiance to Christ does. And this demands our loyalty to Him in everything.
This follows the trajectory of Wright, McKnight, Gorman and others but it is really refreshing for people overexposed to Reformed Evangelicals.
April 25, 2017
Read my review of 'Salvation by Allegiance Alone' on my blog.
They say you can't judge a book by its cover. And I suppose that's usually true. But there are moments when a book's title seems to leap out at you. Seeing 'Salvation by Allegiance Alone' on Amazon's 'Recommended Reads' list was one of those moments.
I immediately knew, by the title and subtitle alone (Salvation by Allegiance Alone: Rethinking Faith, Works, and the Gospel of Jesus the King), that this would not only be a book that I'd enjoy - it would be a book I could have written. And after finishing it, I can only confirm my initial thoughts. Matthew Bates' message here is exactly what the Church needs.
For too long, we've been satisfied with a gospel that is less than gospel. We've assumed that scripture was written to us rather than for us. We've demanded answers to questions the Bible doesn't even address. And we have been left with a nice story that fits perfectly in our individualistic culture: Jesus died on the cross so my sins can be forgiven and I can go to heaven when I die. And all I have to do is agree with the statement, 'Jesus died for my sins.'
We've traded bold, public confessions of 'Jesus is Lord!' for a hand quietly raised when all eyes are closed and all heads are bowed.
May that gospel-that-is-no-gospel die a speedy death!
And may it be replaced with the robust, world-transforming, Kingdom-proclaiming, Jesus-Is-Lord-Gospel that Scripture reveals and Matthew Bates sketches in Salvation by Allegiance Alone.
If you're unfamiliar with Bates (as I was), you may be interested in knowing a little more about him. He doesn't accept any particular theological label (neither Calvinist nor Arminian, Catholic nor Orthodox). And he draws from a variety of scholars and sources (both N.T. Wright and John Piper are referenced, with agreement, in the footnotes). And though there are places where he sounds New-Perspectives-On-Paulish, he doesn't adhere to everything that people associate with that group (but who does, right? It's really too broad a label to be of much use). For example, he disagrees with Wright's interpretation of 'the righteousness of God' as 'covenant faithfulness.'
Bates also reaches his hands out - full of olive branches - everywhere he can, by noting areas of agreement with traditional Protestant and Catholic theology. This is something I have a great deal of respect for. Error is seldom pure. It usually comes, like a poison, mixed with truth. Too often, we see an error and then assume that the opposite must be true rather than teasing out any truth that may lie under the surface.
Bates is careful to tease out truth wherever he finds it.
With that said, those Christians who are committed to a traditional reading of the text will have a hard time with what Bates writes here. He shakes things up. But even if you know you're going to disagree, I'd encourage you to read it anyway. If nothing else, he'll force you to think through more clearly what you believe - as well as why.
So, what is Bates' argument?
He begins, like Inigo Montoya in the Princess Bride, by telling us that though we keep using that word, faith, he doesn't think it means what we think it means. We have, in Bates' view, reduced the idea of faith down to mere mental assent. As if nodding my head after someone asks, "Do you believe Jesus died for your sins?" is all Paul had in mind when he said, "If you...believe in your heart that God raised Him out from the dead, you will be saved" (Romans 10:9). This is, in my opinion, one of the strongest parts of the book.
Bates marshals all of the ancient evidence available - Scripture and secular sources alike - to paint a more robust picture of faith. Faith isn't the opposite of good works. It isn't mere intellectual agreement. It isn't a positive attitude. Faith - especially in its saving form - is more akin to our modern idea of allegiance. One of the most powerful evidence of this, in my mind, is a story Bates quotes from Josephus' autobiography. Josephus, a general at the time, encountered a rebel leader whom he told "repent and believe in me" - using almost identical language to Jesus. And this isn't the only example of 'belief' or 'faith' referring to fidelity. There are dozens of others.
Bates argues that the idea of pistis, the Greek word normally translated 'faith', includes three aspects: "intellectual agreement", a "confession of loyalty", and "embodied fidelity." This understanding is desperately needed in churches where faith has been simplified down to 'agreement.' Honestly, I felt like this part of the book alone is worth the price. If we're going to overcome the idea of 'cheap grace' that has pervaded the church over the past century, we're going to have to seek a fuller picture of faith.
Bates also spends a sizable amount of time dealing with the question: what is the gospel?
Here, he follows very much in line with N.T. Wright. The gospel is the story of Jesus' incarnation, life, death, resurrection, and enthronement. In other words, the gospel is a cosmic story that God calls us to enter. It isn't three-steps-to-salvation or the Romans Road. It's all about Jesus.
Just as contemporary Christianity has flattened its understanding of faith, it's done the same thing to the Gospel. It's simplified and personalized it to the point that it barely reflects the truth behind it. Bates does an admirable job at arguing that Jesus' enthronement as King is central to the gospel - from Matthew through Revelation. Sadly, this central aspect has been largely left behind for many modern Christians. Today, it's all about Jesus' death on the cross.
Don't get me (or Bates) wrong, Jesus' death is hugely important. But it would be just another death without his resurrection and enthronement. If we're going to accurately proclaim the Gospel, we must proclaim the whole Gospel.
I was also happy to see that Bates included a whole chapter of common questions he gets when explaining his understanding of faith as allegiance. Unfortunately, some of his explanations only made me want to ask him more questions. Especially when discussing assurance and the place of works in the Christian life. Nevertheless, it's a good start.
Though again, if you've been reared in traditional Protestant theology, you'll find plenty to disagree with here. Bates argues that we are judged based on our works (though to be fair, so does Paul - see Romans 2:5-8). He adeptly argues that Paul was not against works per se, but works as a system of salvation. I agree with Bates here. You may or may not.
The idea of faith as allegiance is everywhere in the first five chapters. The next two, one focusing on 'heaven' and the other on 'the image of God', seem less directly involved in the allegiance discussion - though they are nonetheless excellent. Basically, Bates argues that our eternal home will be the new heaven and new earth; and the image of God is not something we have but something we are. If these ideas seem new to you, all I can say is read these two chapters. They're a great summary of a needed theological course-correction within much of evangelicalism.
The eighth chapter focuses on how 'faith as allegiance' fits into the Biblical understanding of justification. I love the way he argues that trying to force scripture to give us an 'order of salvation' is an absurd endeavor. I happen to agree. The New Testament authors (and the Old Testament authors for that matter) were not systematic theologians. They were writing practical documents, not theoretical ones. Again, this is something that modern Christians - especially more theologically inclined ones - need to hear.
For Bates, justification is rooted firmly in the idea of union-with-Christ. He deviates from the Calvinistic view of individual predestination (though he leaves the door open for its possibility) and instead points to a corporate view of election. God chose those who are in Christ - though they can enter or leave that union as an employee might join or leave a particular company. As long as one is in union with Christ, he is justified. In this, he commends both Catholics and Protestants for important contributions to a biblical understanding of justification. Though he also critiques both groups.
He ends the book with a chapter on making the idea of 'faith as allegiance' practical. This is something that more theological books need to include. Though Bates doesn't expand nearly as much as I would have liked. He basically argues that we need to proclaim the Gospel as the full story it is and call people to discipleship - not just a sinner's prayer. Finally, he closes with a recommendation that I wholeheartedly endorse: making the Apostle's Creed a regular part of worship.
I could say so much more about this book. I loved it.
With that said, I feel like the chapters were a little out-of-order. They didn't flow as naturally into each other as they could have. For example, chapter eight should have been chapter five and everything else should have been pushed back.
Likewise, his view of assurance felt flimsy to me though I think my disagreement has more to do with his wording than anything else.
Ultimately, this is a book you'll either love or hate. If you believe we need to proclaim a more robust, Biblical Gospel - if you believe faith includes more than merely saying "I do" - if you believe Jesus is calling us to faith and faithfulness - if you like the phrase 'King Jesus' - you'll find much to love about this book.
But...if your feet are firmly planted in the concrete of Reformed (or any other) tradition, you'll probably want to throw the book down and scream from time to time. But that's okay. Use it as an opportunity to return to scripture and judge your views - and Bates's - by God's revelation.
May we all seek THE Gospel. And accept no imitations.
They say you can't judge a book by its cover. And I suppose that's usually true. But there are moments when a book's title seems to leap out at you. Seeing 'Salvation by Allegiance Alone' on Amazon's 'Recommended Reads' list was one of those moments.
I immediately knew, by the title and subtitle alone (Salvation by Allegiance Alone: Rethinking Faith, Works, and the Gospel of Jesus the King), that this would not only be a book that I'd enjoy - it would be a book I could have written. And after finishing it, I can only confirm my initial thoughts. Matthew Bates' message here is exactly what the Church needs.
For too long, we've been satisfied with a gospel that is less than gospel. We've assumed that scripture was written to us rather than for us. We've demanded answers to questions the Bible doesn't even address. And we have been left with a nice story that fits perfectly in our individualistic culture: Jesus died on the cross so my sins can be forgiven and I can go to heaven when I die. And all I have to do is agree with the statement, 'Jesus died for my sins.'
We've traded bold, public confessions of 'Jesus is Lord!' for a hand quietly raised when all eyes are closed and all heads are bowed.
May that gospel-that-is-no-gospel die a speedy death!
And may it be replaced with the robust, world-transforming, Kingdom-proclaiming, Jesus-Is-Lord-Gospel that Scripture reveals and Matthew Bates sketches in Salvation by Allegiance Alone.
If you're unfamiliar with Bates (as I was), you may be interested in knowing a little more about him. He doesn't accept any particular theological label (neither Calvinist nor Arminian, Catholic nor Orthodox). And he draws from a variety of scholars and sources (both N.T. Wright and John Piper are referenced, with agreement, in the footnotes). And though there are places where he sounds New-Perspectives-On-Paulish, he doesn't adhere to everything that people associate with that group (but who does, right? It's really too broad a label to be of much use). For example, he disagrees with Wright's interpretation of 'the righteousness of God' as 'covenant faithfulness.'
Bates also reaches his hands out - full of olive branches - everywhere he can, by noting areas of agreement with traditional Protestant and Catholic theology. This is something I have a great deal of respect for. Error is seldom pure. It usually comes, like a poison, mixed with truth. Too often, we see an error and then assume that the opposite must be true rather than teasing out any truth that may lie under the surface.
Bates is careful to tease out truth wherever he finds it.
With that said, those Christians who are committed to a traditional reading of the text will have a hard time with what Bates writes here. He shakes things up. But even if you know you're going to disagree, I'd encourage you to read it anyway. If nothing else, he'll force you to think through more clearly what you believe - as well as why.
So, what is Bates' argument?
He begins, like Inigo Montoya in the Princess Bride, by telling us that though we keep using that word, faith, he doesn't think it means what we think it means. We have, in Bates' view, reduced the idea of faith down to mere mental assent. As if nodding my head after someone asks, "Do you believe Jesus died for your sins?" is all Paul had in mind when he said, "If you...believe in your heart that God raised Him out from the dead, you will be saved" (Romans 10:9). This is, in my opinion, one of the strongest parts of the book.
Bates marshals all of the ancient evidence available - Scripture and secular sources alike - to paint a more robust picture of faith. Faith isn't the opposite of good works. It isn't mere intellectual agreement. It isn't a positive attitude. Faith - especially in its saving form - is more akin to our modern idea of allegiance. One of the most powerful evidence of this, in my mind, is a story Bates quotes from Josephus' autobiography. Josephus, a general at the time, encountered a rebel leader whom he told "repent and believe in me" - using almost identical language to Jesus. And this isn't the only example of 'belief' or 'faith' referring to fidelity. There are dozens of others.
Bates argues that the idea of pistis, the Greek word normally translated 'faith', includes three aspects: "intellectual agreement", a "confession of loyalty", and "embodied fidelity." This understanding is desperately needed in churches where faith has been simplified down to 'agreement.' Honestly, I felt like this part of the book alone is worth the price. If we're going to overcome the idea of 'cheap grace' that has pervaded the church over the past century, we're going to have to seek a fuller picture of faith.
Bates also spends a sizable amount of time dealing with the question: what is the gospel?
Here, he follows very much in line with N.T. Wright. The gospel is the story of Jesus' incarnation, life, death, resurrection, and enthronement. In other words, the gospel is a cosmic story that God calls us to enter. It isn't three-steps-to-salvation or the Romans Road. It's all about Jesus.
Just as contemporary Christianity has flattened its understanding of faith, it's done the same thing to the Gospel. It's simplified and personalized it to the point that it barely reflects the truth behind it. Bates does an admirable job at arguing that Jesus' enthronement as King is central to the gospel - from Matthew through Revelation. Sadly, this central aspect has been largely left behind for many modern Christians. Today, it's all about Jesus' death on the cross.
Don't get me (or Bates) wrong, Jesus' death is hugely important. But it would be just another death without his resurrection and enthronement. If we're going to accurately proclaim the Gospel, we must proclaim the whole Gospel.
I was also happy to see that Bates included a whole chapter of common questions he gets when explaining his understanding of faith as allegiance. Unfortunately, some of his explanations only made me want to ask him more questions. Especially when discussing assurance and the place of works in the Christian life. Nevertheless, it's a good start.
Though again, if you've been reared in traditional Protestant theology, you'll find plenty to disagree with here. Bates argues that we are judged based on our works (though to be fair, so does Paul - see Romans 2:5-8). He adeptly argues that Paul was not against works per se, but works as a system of salvation. I agree with Bates here. You may or may not.
The idea of faith as allegiance is everywhere in the first five chapters. The next two, one focusing on 'heaven' and the other on 'the image of God', seem less directly involved in the allegiance discussion - though they are nonetheless excellent. Basically, Bates argues that our eternal home will be the new heaven and new earth; and the image of God is not something we have but something we are. If these ideas seem new to you, all I can say is read these two chapters. They're a great summary of a needed theological course-correction within much of evangelicalism.
The eighth chapter focuses on how 'faith as allegiance' fits into the Biblical understanding of justification. I love the way he argues that trying to force scripture to give us an 'order of salvation' is an absurd endeavor. I happen to agree. The New Testament authors (and the Old Testament authors for that matter) were not systematic theologians. They were writing practical documents, not theoretical ones. Again, this is something that modern Christians - especially more theologically inclined ones - need to hear.
For Bates, justification is rooted firmly in the idea of union-with-Christ. He deviates from the Calvinistic view of individual predestination (though he leaves the door open for its possibility) and instead points to a corporate view of election. God chose those who are in Christ - though they can enter or leave that union as an employee might join or leave a particular company. As long as one is in union with Christ, he is justified. In this, he commends both Catholics and Protestants for important contributions to a biblical understanding of justification. Though he also critiques both groups.
He ends the book with a chapter on making the idea of 'faith as allegiance' practical. This is something that more theological books need to include. Though Bates doesn't expand nearly as much as I would have liked. He basically argues that we need to proclaim the Gospel as the full story it is and call people to discipleship - not just a sinner's prayer. Finally, he closes with a recommendation that I wholeheartedly endorse: making the Apostle's Creed a regular part of worship.
I could say so much more about this book. I loved it.
With that said, I feel like the chapters were a little out-of-order. They didn't flow as naturally into each other as they could have. For example, chapter eight should have been chapter five and everything else should have been pushed back.
Likewise, his view of assurance felt flimsy to me though I think my disagreement has more to do with his wording than anything else.
Ultimately, this is a book you'll either love or hate. If you believe we need to proclaim a more robust, Biblical Gospel - if you believe faith includes more than merely saying "I do" - if you believe Jesus is calling us to faith and faithfulness - if you like the phrase 'King Jesus' - you'll find much to love about this book.
But...if your feet are firmly planted in the concrete of Reformed (or any other) tradition, you'll probably want to throw the book down and scream from time to time. But that's okay. Use it as an opportunity to return to scripture and judge your views - and Bates's - by God's revelation.
May we all seek THE Gospel. And accept no imitations.
September 20, 2017
This book deserves a very serious review, for nothing less than the salvation of souls at stake; yet I'm not sure I currently have the mental alertness necessary to doing a great job. But I'll give it a try anyway. Bates' core assertion is that the translation of the common Greek word pistis as "faith" is unfortunate. From a study of ancient literature, he believes a translation such as "allegiance" is better in most NT contexts. Thus, rather than "believing" in Jesus for salvation, we must do something more akin to "offering fealty."
I believe he is on to something important here, but he severely overstates his case. I have often been concerned that those wholly committed to Reformational though have reduced salvation to something along the lines of "thinking the right thoughts." Think of how you have heard the requirements for salvation described before (man's, not Christ's, requirements). Could it not often be reduced to a manner of thought (or, dare I say, of "belief")? Sure, we talk about repentance (turning from sin) and a live of fruitfulness, but so often those are treated as appendages. This is probably an overreaction to medieval Roman thought. We are so afraid of "works righteousness" that we have read Romans and Galatians as if they were written around AD 1500 instead of around AD 50.
Now, please here what I am not saying. I am not getting squishy on the doctrine of justification by faith alone. But we cannot reduce faith to "believing that Jesus died for my sins." Because Jesus came to do a lot more than just die. He came to be the new Adam (Ps. 8), the new David (2 Sam. 7); in other words, he came to REIGN. He came to take his throne. You could almost say that the cross was a means to an end--a means of securing for himself a people, subjects of his eternal reign. This brings me to another pet peeve--people who talk about Christ's work in very self-centered terms. He did come to save us, but that was not the ULTIMATE purpose of the incarnation.
Bates' book addresses many of these issues. He looks at how the term "gospel" is used in Paul and in the gospels. Yes it includes remission of sin, but more commonly it has to do with Christ's announcing his kingdom and assuming the Davidic throne. And what is the proper response to a coronation? It's not just "believing" in the king; it's bowing the knee, it's paying homage, it's offering undiluted loyalty.
How loyal are believers today? I've come up with a thought experiment. Go to a Nascar race and boo the national anthem. See what happens to you. Now tell your friends at church that your next-door neighbor is a Mormon. Who will be more upset--the Average Joe sitting next to you at Talladega, or the dear saint next to you in the pew? I think we all know the answer. We believe in Jesus but trust in Donald Trump.
Like I said, Bates' book is far from perfect. He takes totally unnecessary detours to the doctrines of new creation and image-bearing. He has the tendency to paint things as "either-or" rather than "both-and" (rejecting the ordo salutis instead of incorporating it; claiming election in the NT is always corporate, never individual; e.g.). He speaks very rarely of what such allegiance actually looks like. The cover of the book is disgusting. And yet we all need to think through his claims. What does Christ demand of us? What role will our good works play at the final judgment (when we are most properly declared to be "justified")? What content is necessary in one's saving faith (never forget the thief on the cross)?
I believe he is on to something important here, but he severely overstates his case. I have often been concerned that those wholly committed to Reformational though have reduced salvation to something along the lines of "thinking the right thoughts." Think of how you have heard the requirements for salvation described before (man's, not Christ's, requirements). Could it not often be reduced to a manner of thought (or, dare I say, of "belief")? Sure, we talk about repentance (turning from sin) and a live of fruitfulness, but so often those are treated as appendages. This is probably an overreaction to medieval Roman thought. We are so afraid of "works righteousness" that we have read Romans and Galatians as if they were written around AD 1500 instead of around AD 50.
Now, please here what I am not saying. I am not getting squishy on the doctrine of justification by faith alone. But we cannot reduce faith to "believing that Jesus died for my sins." Because Jesus came to do a lot more than just die. He came to be the new Adam (Ps. 8), the new David (2 Sam. 7); in other words, he came to REIGN. He came to take his throne. You could almost say that the cross was a means to an end--a means of securing for himself a people, subjects of his eternal reign. This brings me to another pet peeve--people who talk about Christ's work in very self-centered terms. He did come to save us, but that was not the ULTIMATE purpose of the incarnation.
Bates' book addresses many of these issues. He looks at how the term "gospel" is used in Paul and in the gospels. Yes it includes remission of sin, but more commonly it has to do with Christ's announcing his kingdom and assuming the Davidic throne. And what is the proper response to a coronation? It's not just "believing" in the king; it's bowing the knee, it's paying homage, it's offering undiluted loyalty.
How loyal are believers today? I've come up with a thought experiment. Go to a Nascar race and boo the national anthem. See what happens to you. Now tell your friends at church that your next-door neighbor is a Mormon. Who will be more upset--the Average Joe sitting next to you at Talladega, or the dear saint next to you in the pew? I think we all know the answer. We believe in Jesus but trust in Donald Trump.
Like I said, Bates' book is far from perfect. He takes totally unnecessary detours to the doctrines of new creation and image-bearing. He has the tendency to paint things as "either-or" rather than "both-and" (rejecting the ordo salutis instead of incorporating it; claiming election in the NT is always corporate, never individual; e.g.). He speaks very rarely of what such allegiance actually looks like. The cover of the book is disgusting. And yet we all need to think through his claims. What does Christ demand of us? What role will our good works play at the final judgment (when we are most properly declared to be "justified")? What content is necessary in one's saving faith (never forget the thief on the cross)?
December 30, 2022
A magnificent book that challenges the harsh faith/works dichotomy within many evangelical and Reformed traditions. Importantly, I do not agree with some of his conclusions regarding justification by faith toward the end of the book. But, I do think that most of this work is worthy to be integrated into the thinking of believers on the importance of good works as a part (don't overread that word) of saving faith. He holds some elements in tension better than other models/approaches I have heard.
His central thesis is that pistis (translated faith) should be translated/understood as "allegiance/loyalty". He believes this better illuminates the New Testaments' teaching on enacted loyalty and obedience as a necessary part of the Christian life and faith and God's determination of our being in-Christ on the last day. He then fleshes this out in various areas of salvation and theology throughout the book.
Careful to avoid claiming works as earning salvation Bates holds these in tension well. He says that the loyalty approach avoids rule-based systems and points us to understanding Jesus as a Saving King and membership into His Kingdom is contingent upon outward obedience and good works that represent loyalty to our King. A worthy challenge and helpful emphasis for readers to help us take seriously the call to obey God as part of our faith.
There are conclusions regarding justification with which I do not hold or agree with. We must be very careful to avoid works-righteousness/rule-based Kingdom membership but we must also not ignore Scripture's clear call to good works and faithfulness as a necessary aspect of being in Christ.
In conclusion, works/obedience are more than just evidence of saving faith and less than salvation-earning. I think Bates achieves a model that is effective in bringing that out with important qualifiers and areas of disagreement.
His central thesis is that pistis (translated faith) should be translated/understood as "allegiance/loyalty". He believes this better illuminates the New Testaments' teaching on enacted loyalty and obedience as a necessary part of the Christian life and faith and God's determination of our being in-Christ on the last day. He then fleshes this out in various areas of salvation and theology throughout the book.
Careful to avoid claiming works as earning salvation Bates holds these in tension well. He says that the loyalty approach avoids rule-based systems and points us to understanding Jesus as a Saving King and membership into His Kingdom is contingent upon outward obedience and good works that represent loyalty to our King. A worthy challenge and helpful emphasis for readers to help us take seriously the call to obey God as part of our faith.
There are conclusions regarding justification with which I do not hold or agree with. We must be very careful to avoid works-righteousness/rule-based Kingdom membership but we must also not ignore Scripture's clear call to good works and faithfulness as a necessary aspect of being in Christ.
In conclusion, works/obedience are more than just evidence of saving faith and less than salvation-earning. I think Bates achieves a model that is effective in bringing that out with important qualifiers and areas of disagreement.
March 26, 2017
I appreciate the emphasis of the main thesis on allegiance over against mere belief. But overall I think much of the case he builds for this thesis and his secondary suggestions around the ordo salutis, especially with respect to election, could be helped greatly with a both–and approach rather than an either–or approach.
Really it is not belief that is the enemy, but mere belief, perhaps even a belief that makes things true (a la Disney) rather than one that recognizes real unseen truth. Allegiance is not so much a new notion as a forgotten one, or an inadequately fleshed out one: really very close to fiducia after all. Considering more of the evidence that doesn't fit allegiance perfectly, for example Mark 9 and Hebrews 11, we really do end up back with the full–orbed notitia, assensus and fiducia triad.
Concerning election, there is no need to pit individual and corporate election as mutually exclusive alternative readings; I much prefer to take a “symphonic theology” or “multi–perspectival” approach to the reading and especially to the application. Similarly with righteousness and justification; we can recognize additional themes in these, such as vindication and sanctification, without disparaging the old familiar themes.
Really it is not belief that is the enemy, but mere belief, perhaps even a belief that makes things true (a la Disney) rather than one that recognizes real unseen truth. Allegiance is not so much a new notion as a forgotten one, or an inadequately fleshed out one: really very close to fiducia after all. Considering more of the evidence that doesn't fit allegiance perfectly, for example Mark 9 and Hebrews 11, we really do end up back with the full–orbed notitia, assensus and fiducia triad.
Concerning election, there is no need to pit individual and corporate election as mutually exclusive alternative readings; I much prefer to take a “symphonic theology” or “multi–perspectival” approach to the reading and especially to the application. Similarly with righteousness and justification; we can recognize additional themes in these, such as vindication and sanctification, without disparaging the old familiar themes.
October 23, 2019
A very helpful book ecumenically. Protestant-Catholic dialogue on justification is ongoing and this is a rich avenue for that discussion. My critiques are that I felt that Bates left imputed righteousness too far behind and, pragmatically, I'm concerned that elevation/spiritualization of the concept of allegiance would open the door to further entrenchment by the church in allegiance to human religious and political figures. But overall, this was a very fitting critique of fideism in the Church and a theologically worthwhile consideration of the nature of pistis in the ancient world and early church.
August 29, 2023
Finally got around to reading this one which has been on my list for some time. It is a great companion to Barclay's PAUL AND THE POWER OF GRACE (and Mcknight's KING JESUS GOSPEL), focusing on pistis/faith rather than charis/grace. A very clear explanation of the New Perspective on Paul and an encouraging exhortation to revise the gospel away from just being about the doctrine of justification or faith being about mental assent. The emphasis on the apostle's creed is encouraging and Bates also has a brief but excellent discussion of baptism which I agree with wholeheartedly and I am glad to find so well represented in modern scholarship.
I do have some questions/qualms. Bates makes a strong case that allegiance/loyalty/faithfulness/fealty is in view in many places in the NT when pistis/faith is used. Eye opening just how much. That said, there are also many places in the NT where pistis/faith clearly means trust/belief and it's not always clear which is which. Similarly, if we get confused or overcorrect we do indeed damage justification by faith and end up with justification by sustained obedience.
Other questions I have relate to all of the New Perspective writers and Wright. D. A. Carson once shared a story of relating Wright's view to an older revered scholar (I don't remember which one, Moule?). After listening the scholar asked, "Does he [Wright] know any Greek?"
Now of course Wright knows Greek. He's a master of the language, but the scholar's question is a good illustration of something counter-intuitive about the New Perspective. Why do the NT authors use so many forensic and legal terms if that's not what they meant? The New Perspective is arguing that first century Jews generally, but especially the NT authors, are using forensic, legal, and law-court terms for something very different. (The argument of course is that these words meant something different in Jewish culture, but that's still hotly debated, and they have not yet convinced the philologists or lexicographers.)
A recommended read for those interested in the subject and a theological text that has a lot of opportunities for application in ev and discipleship (Bates recommends Willard's texts).
I do have some questions/qualms. Bates makes a strong case that allegiance/loyalty/faithfulness/fealty is in view in many places in the NT when pistis/faith is used. Eye opening just how much. That said, there are also many places in the NT where pistis/faith clearly means trust/belief and it's not always clear which is which. Similarly, if we get confused or overcorrect we do indeed damage justification by faith and end up with justification by sustained obedience.
Other questions I have relate to all of the New Perspective writers and Wright. D. A. Carson once shared a story of relating Wright's view to an older revered scholar (I don't remember which one, Moule?). After listening the scholar asked, "Does he [Wright] know any Greek?"
Now of course Wright knows Greek. He's a master of the language, but the scholar's question is a good illustration of something counter-intuitive about the New Perspective. Why do the NT authors use so many forensic and legal terms if that's not what they meant? The New Perspective is arguing that first century Jews generally, but especially the NT authors, are using forensic, legal, and law-court terms for something very different. (The argument of course is that these words meant something different in Jewish culture, but that's still hotly debated, and they have not yet convinced the philologists or lexicographers.)
A recommended read for those interested in the subject and a theological text that has a lot of opportunities for application in ev and discipleship (Bates recommends Willard's texts).
February 6, 2019
I like the idea of this book: Salvation is not mere assent to facts about Jesus; it is a declaration of and remaining in a lifelong allegiance to Jesus as King. I appreciate the effort to address the problem of easy-believism. And I do think it is important to use terminology that inherently demands more than mere intellectual assent for salvation. This book just didn't quite make the argument well enough, though.
I think Bates's chapter on the Gospel (chapter 3) was for the most part very good. But the key chapter in the book in arguing that pistis is actually "allegiance" (chapter 4) was insufficient to support his point. I was really hoping for a lot more from this chapter. It felt like the argument was, "Pistis can mean 'allegiance' in some places, so pistis does mean 'allegiance' in a host of other places, particularly the places that talk about salvation by pistis." With such a HUGE claim that challenges how Protestants have defined faith for 4 years, I think much more argumentation is necessary. I would have appreciated another chapter or two really working through key passages in greater depth and giving some guidelines for when pistis may mean "allegiance" and when it may merely mean "believe."
Also, I think the use of pisteuo in John 2:24 is critical in any study on the real meaning of pistis/pisteuo (because it's a key non-soteriological use of the word), but Bates addresses this only briefly (p. 96n32).
Bates's transformation of "believe" in many verses to "give pistis [allegiance] to" seems a bit forced. For example, Bates interprets John 2:11 thus, "And his disciples gave pistis unto him." I agree that John 2:11 is saying more than that the disciples merely believed some facts about Jesus. In some way, they are attaching themselves to Jesus here. But based on the precedent in John 2:24, I would say that the disciples in John 2:11 begin "entrusting themselves" to Jesus.
In the end, part of the goal of the book seems to be to bridge the gap between Protestant and Roman Catholic ideas of salvation. Most of the book seeks to demonstrate how "salvation by allegiance alone" fits in well with other aspects of theology.
I think Bates's chapter on the Gospel (chapter 3) was for the most part very good. But the key chapter in the book in arguing that pistis is actually "allegiance" (chapter 4) was insufficient to support his point. I was really hoping for a lot more from this chapter. It felt like the argument was, "Pistis can mean 'allegiance' in some places, so pistis does mean 'allegiance' in a host of other places, particularly the places that talk about salvation by pistis." With such a HUGE claim that challenges how Protestants have defined faith for 4 years, I think much more argumentation is necessary. I would have appreciated another chapter or two really working through key passages in greater depth and giving some guidelines for when pistis may mean "allegiance" and when it may merely mean "believe."
Also, I think the use of pisteuo in John 2:24 is critical in any study on the real meaning of pistis/pisteuo (because it's a key non-soteriological use of the word), but Bates addresses this only briefly (p. 96n32).
Bates's transformation of "believe" in many verses to "give pistis [allegiance] to" seems a bit forced. For example, Bates interprets John 2:11 thus, "And his disciples gave pistis unto him." I agree that John 2:11 is saying more than that the disciples merely believed some facts about Jesus. In some way, they are attaching themselves to Jesus here. But based on the precedent in John 2:24, I would say that the disciples in John 2:11 begin "entrusting themselves" to Jesus.
In the end, part of the goal of the book seems to be to bridge the gap between Protestant and Roman Catholic ideas of salvation. Most of the book seeks to demonstrate how "salvation by allegiance alone" fits in well with other aspects of theology.
January 5, 2021
This book is disturbingly promoting a theology which puts the works-cart before the faith-horse once again, confusing the effects and results of true conversion with the requirement to be saved. Salvation by Allegiance Alone is works-based salvation in a new dress. It was recommended to me by a pastor who is currently part of a church which is increasingly focused on external change at the neglect of the Gospel. The Church of Martha! The church of Pharisees! Increasingly focused on promoting the Works Cart, while ignoring Grace. This pastor was actually critical of the pastor of another local church because in the latter's sermon he said we are saved by grace, (instead of by the allegience which must FOLLOW true salvation, not produce it!) The foreward celebrates this heresy openly saying that people are bored by the old message and pastors need to stir things up with this new approach. Hmmm. That's how heresy is born and cults are created.
May 26, 2020
Probably as good a synopsis of the biblical portrayal of soteriology as I have yet read. Bates is compelling, careful, and cogent (and probably other positive c words). He gives a very good treatment of the works-law-faith discussion in Romans, recasting it from Reformation era thought into the first century Jewish world. The Greek word "pistis" is a layered word, and often gets translated as belief or trust. Bates argues that allegiance is a better word because it goes beyond mental assent to partnering with God and producing his fruits (which is not to say that we must be perfect in our works in order to be saved).
He also has a great chapter on why sin is problematic. It's not because God is petty and arbitrary but rather has to do with the fact that we are image-bearers; that is, God has done the unthinkable and shared his image with us and for us to misuse that divine image is serious. I also enjoyed his discussion of the new heavens and the new earth and how that is the ultimate goal rather than individual salvation or going off to a nebulous celestial afterlife. I especially like what he says about pre-fallen Eden being a garden and the restored Eden being a city, and how that can be taken to mean that the restored world will include humanity's work (inventions/languages/arts/etc.) and is thus best symbolized by a city.
The level of scholarship is appropriate for anyone with a moderate interest in theology, but I didn't immensely enjoy the writing style. He can be a little wooden (though I'm not sure what all I mean by that), and there were too many footnotes cluttering the text. In my opinion they should have been in a separate section in the back.
He also has a great chapter on why sin is problematic. It's not because God is petty and arbitrary but rather has to do with the fact that we are image-bearers; that is, God has done the unthinkable and shared his image with us and for us to misuse that divine image is serious. I also enjoyed his discussion of the new heavens and the new earth and how that is the ultimate goal rather than individual salvation or going off to a nebulous celestial afterlife. I especially like what he says about pre-fallen Eden being a garden and the restored Eden being a city, and how that can be taken to mean that the restored world will include humanity's work (inventions/languages/arts/etc.) and is thus best symbolized by a city.
The level of scholarship is appropriate for anyone with a moderate interest in theology, but I didn't immensely enjoy the writing style. He can be a little wooden (though I'm not sure what all I mean by that), and there were too many footnotes cluttering the text. In my opinion they should have been in a separate section in the back.
August 29, 2024
I love Matt Bates. I've really appreciated a lot of what I've read from him. Ironically, this particular book (his most popular one) was one of his only books that I hadn't read entirely until now. The primary thesis—that Jesus' kingship is central to the gospel and that saving faith is about fidelity and allegiance—is one that I wholeheartedly agree with. I was already familiar with the thesis, as it was laid out wonderfully in his little book, "The Gospel Precisely," and in his newest book, "Why the Gospel?". Nevertheless, in this, his most comprehensive treatment of the topic of salvation, I was hoping for a more robust theology of Israel. Unfortunately, I found the book to be lacking in that department. And, as is the case with most Christian books that present Scripture as a meta-narrative, what is primarily foregrounded about Israel (when they are mentioned) is their evangelistic utility, rather than God's unique love for them (cf. Deut. 7:6-8). I think this is an unfortunate way to understand Israel's election, and it can have problematic theological implications. I also found Bates' theology of atonement to be underdeveloped. Of course, this wasn't a book about atonement; but the doctrine of salvation is so integrally caught up with notions of atonement that I wish it was given more careful attention. Even still, because of the importance of this book as an accessible theological corrective to popular understandings of the gospel, and as a helpful and important effort in ongoing ecumenical dialogue, I went with a 4/5.
May 20, 2025
A great introduction to what is somehow becoming a controversial issue: understanding pistis (faith) as allegiance (a word that captures faith and faithfulness) and not as merely mental assent to a set of facts or doctrines. Dr. Bates offers a helpful outline of what the Gospel message is: Jesus the King preexisted with the Father, took on human flesh fulfilling God’s promises to David, died for sins in accordance with the Scriptures, was buried, was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, appeared to many, is seated at the right hand of God as Lord, and will come again to judge. Dr. Bates shows how having a biblical understanding of faith (allegiance) includes mental affirmation that the gospel is true, professed fealty to Jesus alone as the cosmic Lord, and enacted loyalty through obedience to Jesus as the king.
There is also a chapter covering possible objections or questions about understanding faith as allegiance (like, “how do I know if I’m allegiant enough?”) that I found to be super helpful.
This book is a great first step at better understanding what the Gospel actually is and what it means to have faith in Jesus the Messiah.
There is also a chapter covering possible objections or questions about understanding faith as allegiance (like, “how do I know if I’m allegiant enough?”) that I found to be super helpful.
This book is a great first step at better understanding what the Gospel actually is and what it means to have faith in Jesus the Messiah.
March 4, 2017
It’s no secret in scholarship that the English language does not have words that carry the same meaning and connotation of the Greek word pistis and its various forms and conjugations; however, that doesn’t stop most from using “faith” in its place wherever found. The driving force of Matthew W Bates’ Salvation by Allegiance Alone: Rethinking Faith, Works, and the Gospel of Jesus the King is the reevaluation of pistis as “allegiance rather than “faith” in its greater context. I do not doubt that many will find Bates convincing in this regard, especially those already aware of the political context of Scripture; however, there are several major points I find in need of revision in this thought-provoking work.
First, Bates argues that the oft used arguments for “salvation by faith alone” have not only been theologically wanting but also damaging to the way in which hearers may then perceive and read Scripture and live (or not) as citizens of the kingdom of God. Studying in both Presbyterian and Catholic contexts, Bates feels he is uniquely positioned to speak in a bridging manner for Protestants and Catholics, particularly regarding the place of “works” or “living out one’s faith,” as some describe it, in conjunction with faith—or, as he argues, one’s allegiance to Jesus as Lord. His arguments are sound and point out philosophical, theological, and practical flaws on both sides of the traditional arguments that overemphasize faith or works in such a way that diminishes the other. However, after so doing, he comes back to “allegiance alone” (hence the title), perceivably unable to escape his traditional Evangelical roots, even after arguing for a much deeper understanding of an holistic life actively aligned with the king in mind, heart, and action. Perhaps this new phrase is intended to imply this holistic life, but his arguments against “faith alone” can be used against the reevaluated pistis phrase since “allegiance” may be easily misinterpreted and misused in time, as he has demonstrated the case to be with “faith.” I would encourage an holistic understanding and teaching of pistis, as does Bates, but without the wholesale removal of “faith” terminology, arduous as the task may be.
Second, Bates attempts to define the “gospel message” in its entirety according to eight foundational statements found in the Apostle’s Creed:
"Jesus the King
1. preexisted with the Father,
2. took on human flesh, fulfilling God’s promises to David,
3. died for sins in accordance with the Scriptures,
4. was buried,
5. was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,
6. appeared to many,
7. is seated at the right hand of God as Lord, and
8. will come again as judge." (p# unavailable, emphasis original)
There’s no doubt that these statements are either explicitly or implicitly made by Jesus and/or the apostles; however, I find his argument utterly unconvincing, stemming more from creedal theology rather than an holistic approach to the New Testament’s use of euangelion and its varied forms—basileia (kingdom) isn’t even included in Bates’ gospel message, that which is most associated with “gospel” in the New Testament.
Third, Bates argues that we are “idols of God” solely based on characteristic similarities between “image” and “idol” and the nature of idols in ancient Egypt as articulated by John Walton. No linguistic evidence is provided—contrary to the positive evidence for the pistis/allegiance argument—for a shift from “image” to “idol” in his desire to “restore the idol of God” (humans who properly reflect God, Jesus noted as being the prime and only perfect example this side of the new heavens and earth), but that does not stop him from making the switch and henceforth referring to those aligned with Jesus as idols. Not only is it unconvincing, I find no positive or helpful reason for its inclusion in the book. It simply appears to be an attempt to cram into the book a second linguistic wrench of controversy for the academy and ends up detracting from the greater message.
Finally, pairing “allegiance” and his “gospel” creed, Bates encourages Christians to use and recite the current form of the Apostle’s Creed as the true and proper “Pledge of Allegiance” with ever-increasing frequency in order to proclaim, teach, and remind people of the gospel (as defined by Bates) and with whom they are aligned. Certainly reciting and affirming creeds is not my dispute. They may proclaim truth and serve a purpose, and it’s the purpose and degree of complete truth claimed by the authors and perpetuators that I question. Bates is not the first to put forth an alternative pledge that counters those nationalistic in nature (Shane Claiborne being one of the most recent), and it sounds like a good idea. Jesus is lord; Caesar is not. We (well, some of us) get that. My reservations for using at least this pledge in particular (or really anything as the pledge) should be apparent in my questioning of Bates’ presentation of the holistic gospel message above.
Given the aforementioned observations and reservations, I find the overarching thesis to be an important one in need of further discussion within the academy and local churches alike. A proper understanding of the political context within and with which Scripture is written can only help us more fully understand whose we are, for whom we live, and what a life lived with that perspective may and ought to look like.
*I received a temporary, pre-published digital copy for review from Baker Academic via NetGalley.
First, Bates argues that the oft used arguments for “salvation by faith alone” have not only been theologically wanting but also damaging to the way in which hearers may then perceive and read Scripture and live (or not) as citizens of the kingdom of God. Studying in both Presbyterian and Catholic contexts, Bates feels he is uniquely positioned to speak in a bridging manner for Protestants and Catholics, particularly regarding the place of “works” or “living out one’s faith,” as some describe it, in conjunction with faith—or, as he argues, one’s allegiance to Jesus as Lord. His arguments are sound and point out philosophical, theological, and practical flaws on both sides of the traditional arguments that overemphasize faith or works in such a way that diminishes the other. However, after so doing, he comes back to “allegiance alone” (hence the title), perceivably unable to escape his traditional Evangelical roots, even after arguing for a much deeper understanding of an holistic life actively aligned with the king in mind, heart, and action. Perhaps this new phrase is intended to imply this holistic life, but his arguments against “faith alone” can be used against the reevaluated pistis phrase since “allegiance” may be easily misinterpreted and misused in time, as he has demonstrated the case to be with “faith.” I would encourage an holistic understanding and teaching of pistis, as does Bates, but without the wholesale removal of “faith” terminology, arduous as the task may be.
Second, Bates attempts to define the “gospel message” in its entirety according to eight foundational statements found in the Apostle’s Creed:
"Jesus the King
1. preexisted with the Father,
2. took on human flesh, fulfilling God’s promises to David,
3. died for sins in accordance with the Scriptures,
4. was buried,
5. was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,
6. appeared to many,
7. is seated at the right hand of God as Lord, and
8. will come again as judge." (p# unavailable, emphasis original)
There’s no doubt that these statements are either explicitly or implicitly made by Jesus and/or the apostles; however, I find his argument utterly unconvincing, stemming more from creedal theology rather than an holistic approach to the New Testament’s use of euangelion and its varied forms—basileia (kingdom) isn’t even included in Bates’ gospel message, that which is most associated with “gospel” in the New Testament.
Third, Bates argues that we are “idols of God” solely based on characteristic similarities between “image” and “idol” and the nature of idols in ancient Egypt as articulated by John Walton. No linguistic evidence is provided—contrary to the positive evidence for the pistis/allegiance argument—for a shift from “image” to “idol” in his desire to “restore the idol of God” (humans who properly reflect God, Jesus noted as being the prime and only perfect example this side of the new heavens and earth), but that does not stop him from making the switch and henceforth referring to those aligned with Jesus as idols. Not only is it unconvincing, I find no positive or helpful reason for its inclusion in the book. It simply appears to be an attempt to cram into the book a second linguistic wrench of controversy for the academy and ends up detracting from the greater message.
Finally, pairing “allegiance” and his “gospel” creed, Bates encourages Christians to use and recite the current form of the Apostle’s Creed as the true and proper “Pledge of Allegiance” with ever-increasing frequency in order to proclaim, teach, and remind people of the gospel (as defined by Bates) and with whom they are aligned. Certainly reciting and affirming creeds is not my dispute. They may proclaim truth and serve a purpose, and it’s the purpose and degree of complete truth claimed by the authors and perpetuators that I question. Bates is not the first to put forth an alternative pledge that counters those nationalistic in nature (Shane Claiborne being one of the most recent), and it sounds like a good idea. Jesus is lord; Caesar is not. We (well, some of us) get that. My reservations for using at least this pledge in particular (or really anything as the pledge) should be apparent in my questioning of Bates’ presentation of the holistic gospel message above.
Given the aforementioned observations and reservations, I find the overarching thesis to be an important one in need of further discussion within the academy and local churches alike. A proper understanding of the political context within and with which Scripture is written can only help us more fully understand whose we are, for whom we live, and what a life lived with that perspective may and ought to look like.
*I received a temporary, pre-published digital copy for review from Baker Academic via NetGalley.
December 18, 2019
A potentially provocative book making the case that the NT word "faith" means not so much “believing such and such is true,” but rather “allegiance" or "faithfulness."
The primary implication he draws from this is that the NT writers, namely Paul, do not posit a dichotomy between inward faith and external, practiced deeds, where the first leads to a legal standing of righteousness and the second is merely a result, or a necessary proof of that interior faith. Rather, argues Bates, the kind of faithful deeds that are done from allegiance to Jesus the King are constitutive of faith. IOW, faith is both trust and deeds. I think this is basically the Anabaptist position. What's certain is that among many churches this is enough to get Bates damned as a damnable heretic in eternal hellfire.
He even ends up with a clarification that he is saying Christians are saved by discipleship. And oh, do I hope that rattles some cages.
Bates is foregrounding the Kingship of Jesus as the climax of the gospel story. If Jesus as King is the primary article of the gospel, then this must frame the way we understand a response of faith: not merely an intellectual one (I now believe certain facts about him), nor an epistemology that overrules evidence (I believe the miraculous despite science/proof to the contrary), but fealty to a political authority.
All this is, to this non-seminarian's eye, very well presented and organized. There might be moments where things could be more developed. I do hope he develops its implications in future books because, and this is where I take a star away from the book, what it doesn't do is what I most wanted it to do, namely explain what this new "allegiance" definition means for Christians' engagement in civic life in the secular political order.
So what I'd ultimately hoped for was beyond the scope of what Bates intended, and I’ll just have to go somewhere else for that. The book does what it does very well: it makes a deadly serious claim that everyone (esp. every protestant?) ought to pay attention to. I'd especially commend it to those struggling with the common boredom and malaise that usually accompanies brands of Christianity where someone is constantly delivering a harangue about/against good works in relation to salvation. Looks like we’ve all got more reading to do on that one.
The primary implication he draws from this is that the NT writers, namely Paul, do not posit a dichotomy between inward faith and external, practiced deeds, where the first leads to a legal standing of righteousness and the second is merely a result, or a necessary proof of that interior faith. Rather, argues Bates, the kind of faithful deeds that are done from allegiance to Jesus the King are constitutive of faith. IOW, faith is both trust and deeds. I think this is basically the Anabaptist position. What's certain is that among many churches this is enough to get Bates damned as a damnable heretic in eternal hellfire.
He even ends up with a clarification that he is saying Christians are saved by discipleship. And oh, do I hope that rattles some cages.
Bates is foregrounding the Kingship of Jesus as the climax of the gospel story. If Jesus as King is the primary article of the gospel, then this must frame the way we understand a response of faith: not merely an intellectual one (I now believe certain facts about him), nor an epistemology that overrules evidence (I believe the miraculous despite science/proof to the contrary), but fealty to a political authority.
All this is, to this non-seminarian's eye, very well presented and organized. There might be moments where things could be more developed. I do hope he develops its implications in future books because, and this is where I take a star away from the book, what it doesn't do is what I most wanted it to do, namely explain what this new "allegiance" definition means for Christians' engagement in civic life in the secular political order.
So what I'd ultimately hoped for was beyond the scope of what Bates intended, and I’ll just have to go somewhere else for that. The book does what it does very well: it makes a deadly serious claim that everyone (esp. every protestant?) ought to pay attention to. I'd especially commend it to those struggling with the common boredom and malaise that usually accompanies brands of Christianity where someone is constantly delivering a harangue about/against good works in relation to salvation. Looks like we’ve all got more reading to do on that one.
July 1, 2021
Only a few times in your life do you come across a book that changes everything and causes the most essential puzzle pieces of Scripture to finally click right into place. This book did just that for me, and for that reason it has earned its place in my top five books of all time.
After preaching straight through all four gospels over the last decade, I was faced over and over again with the stark realization that what I had always been taught about salvation and judgment didn't seem to quite match the things that Jesus actually said. It seemed I could either have salvation the hard Jesus way and let it effect every last ounce of me, or the easy Paul way and just "think" my way into salvation. I've longed for a teaching that could marry what both Jesus and Paul said, but almost all of the teaching I came across seemed to act as though Paul's words trumped Jesus's and that I should just stick with what Paul had to say, especially in his letter to the Romans.
But then I found this book. Matthew Bates is bold enough to dive head first into the riddles of the Scriptures and point out passages that many pastors (and even theologians) are quite unwilling to acknowledge. Not only is Bates's understanding grounded in all the key themes of the New Testament that sometimes get ignored (Jesus as King, resurrection bodies, new heaven and new earth, the image of God, etc.), but it's guided both by scholarly studies and a desire to follow the Holy Spirit.
I expected a scholarly book that in the end might say very little. Instead, I got an unexpectedly beautiful book that I will always look back on as one of those rarities that clarified my thinking forever and altered the direction of my preaching.
After preaching straight through all four gospels over the last decade, I was faced over and over again with the stark realization that what I had always been taught about salvation and judgment didn't seem to quite match the things that Jesus actually said. It seemed I could either have salvation the hard Jesus way and let it effect every last ounce of me, or the easy Paul way and just "think" my way into salvation. I've longed for a teaching that could marry what both Jesus and Paul said, but almost all of the teaching I came across seemed to act as though Paul's words trumped Jesus's and that I should just stick with what Paul had to say, especially in his letter to the Romans.
But then I found this book. Matthew Bates is bold enough to dive head first into the riddles of the Scriptures and point out passages that many pastors (and even theologians) are quite unwilling to acknowledge. Not only is Bates's understanding grounded in all the key themes of the New Testament that sometimes get ignored (Jesus as King, resurrection bodies, new heaven and new earth, the image of God, etc.), but it's guided both by scholarly studies and a desire to follow the Holy Spirit.
I expected a scholarly book that in the end might say very little. Instead, I got an unexpectedly beautiful book that I will always look back on as one of those rarities that clarified my thinking forever and altered the direction of my preaching.
March 2, 2025
To be honest, I’m not sure what I think. Salvation, faith, and works are complicated subjects to say the least and part of me thinks we’ll laugh in the New Kingdom at how limited our grasp was of the full picture.
That doesn’t mean we should just throw our hands up and avoid trying to understand God’s salvation and the part we play in his desire to make us holy. But Jesus says to come as a child and I believe that is all the faith that is required. It really is a simple faith in some ways.
I enjoyed thinking my way through this book. I did have some questions that aren’t fully answered, and that might be ok. I had some reservations on this book as I read a scathing 21-page critique in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (no, I don’t typically read this type of stuff, but a friend I have who is an Anabaptist with a theology degree sent it to me. Not that a degree means everything.). I can send it to you too if you let me know.
All that to say, Bates clearly says some essential things here, but I probably wouldn’t go as far as he does in promoting the word “allegiance” to replace “faith”. When my head starts hurting trying to understand it all, or when I get frustrated or confused, I want to remember to come as a child, turn to my Father, and put my trusting hand in his. I know he’s a faithful lover that will show me the way to walk.
That doesn’t mean we should just throw our hands up and avoid trying to understand God’s salvation and the part we play in his desire to make us holy. But Jesus says to come as a child and I believe that is all the faith that is required. It really is a simple faith in some ways.
I enjoyed thinking my way through this book. I did have some questions that aren’t fully answered, and that might be ok. I had some reservations on this book as I read a scathing 21-page critique in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (no, I don’t typically read this type of stuff, but a friend I have who is an Anabaptist with a theology degree sent it to me. Not that a degree means everything.). I can send it to you too if you let me know.
All that to say, Bates clearly says some essential things here, but I probably wouldn’t go as far as he does in promoting the word “allegiance” to replace “faith”. When my head starts hurting trying to understand it all, or when I get frustrated or confused, I want to remember to come as a child, turn to my Father, and put my trusting hand in his. I know he’s a faithful lover that will show me the way to walk.
December 8, 2023
I think the authors base premise is correct: faith is ultimately allegiance to Christ the King. However there are other elements of his understanding of salvation that I disagree with. He strikes me as semi-pelagian which flows out of a poor anthropology and results in an odd understanding of union with Christ. Don’t get me wrong, there is much to agree with in this book and he is well worth reading if you are a pastor or mature believer, but the base concept, as good as it is, needs refinement. Also the book seems to lose its way in the middle and you’re left wondering why we are talking about the new creation and Jesus as an idol. I can see where in his bibliology these come from but they seem superfluous to his base argument. So a worthy sparring partner to the right reader.
April 10, 2017
This book confirms many of my own thoughts about being saved "by faith." I was reluctant to give it five stars because of a few areas I disagree with, but it's such an important pioneering work that to give it a poor review in any way would leave me feeling guilty. I think every Christian (especially those who identify as "Reformed") need to study this. "Saved by faith" does not mean what most Christians today think it means.
June 7, 2023
Completely restructured my entire paradigm on the way I view both the Gospel and the meaning of “faith.” Instead of understanding it in traditional terms as a mere belief in the good news, it actually entails a sworn allegiance to The Kingship of Jesus through Intellectual assent, professed loyalty and embodied obedience to The fullness of The Gospel, especially the Kingship of Christ. Mind blowing read!
May 30, 2019
This is an important book.
It's not a perfect one - in fact, I almost rated it four stars. Two of the chapters needed some reworking to better fit the flow of the argument, and (as I'll explain below) I actually have some disagreements with the author's central thesis!
But I'm still giving it five stars because the book's overall message is one I think every contemporary Christian needs to ponder. That message is that what the New Testament means when it talks about a saving "faith" is often woefully misunderstood today. It was never merely a mental assent to certain doctrines; rather, the Greek term "pistis" and its cognates always had connotations of loyalty, faithfulness, or (the term Matthew Bates advocates) allegiance.
Funny enough, I actually find myself remaining unconvinced of Bates' central thesis (that "allegiance," as opposed to "faith," is a better macro-term to use when explaining a saving response to the gospel). But the reason I like his argument is because of how well he explains the problems with how most modern people use the word "faith." It tends to get watered down into a transactional idea ("I agreed with the facts and prayed the prayer, so now I'm saved!") or into a nebulous "believism" that gets unnecessarily pitted against evidence or works. Bates shines a light on the ways we often get "faith" dead wrong.
But while the term "allegiance" fits well in some contexts, I think the term "faith" is still the best translation of "pistis." It's just that we need to understand faith as a multivalent concept that includes mental assent, confident trust, AND a commitment of faithfulness. In other words, we need to recapture the reality that biblical faith is a deeply relational, dynamic, ongoing activity.
The other reason I recommend this book so highly besides the good questions it raises is because in it Bates gives us what is essentially a biblical theology of allegiance in the New Testament. He offers a fantastic overview of soteriology, discussing how a more dynamic (and biblical) understanding of faith/allegiance fits in with other topics like: election, justification (Bates tackles issues pertaining to the New Perspective on Paul excellently), the role of works, assurance of salvation, and eschatology. And he presents it all in a way that's not overly academic; he writes for a broad audience.
I love that he offers a well-argued alternative to the sort of "Calvinism Lite" that is so en vogue among contemporary evangelicalism. A lot of the books I see that are in this middle-ground between the classroom and the church are very much influenced (consciously or not) by Reformed theology. Bates' views, while not incompatible with Calvinism by any means (as he constantly points out), do serve to highlight where that tradition may be at odds with (or perhaps not the best synthesis of) the biblical data.
Bates has done the church a service by taking some of the best and most important insights of recent New Testament scholarship and making them accessible for the church, and his book deserves a careful read. It's well worth asking the question: When you use the word "faith," does it really mean what you think it means? And more importantly, does it mean what the Bible means? I'll be looking forward to future works by this author.
It's not a perfect one - in fact, I almost rated it four stars. Two of the chapters needed some reworking to better fit the flow of the argument, and (as I'll explain below) I actually have some disagreements with the author's central thesis!
But I'm still giving it five stars because the book's overall message is one I think every contemporary Christian needs to ponder. That message is that what the New Testament means when it talks about a saving "faith" is often woefully misunderstood today. It was never merely a mental assent to certain doctrines; rather, the Greek term "pistis" and its cognates always had connotations of loyalty, faithfulness, or (the term Matthew Bates advocates) allegiance.
Funny enough, I actually find myself remaining unconvinced of Bates' central thesis (that "allegiance," as opposed to "faith," is a better macro-term to use when explaining a saving response to the gospel). But the reason I like his argument is because of how well he explains the problems with how most modern people use the word "faith." It tends to get watered down into a transactional idea ("I agreed with the facts and prayed the prayer, so now I'm saved!") or into a nebulous "believism" that gets unnecessarily pitted against evidence or works. Bates shines a light on the ways we often get "faith" dead wrong.
But while the term "allegiance" fits well in some contexts, I think the term "faith" is still the best translation of "pistis." It's just that we need to understand faith as a multivalent concept that includes mental assent, confident trust, AND a commitment of faithfulness. In other words, we need to recapture the reality that biblical faith is a deeply relational, dynamic, ongoing activity.
The other reason I recommend this book so highly besides the good questions it raises is because in it Bates gives us what is essentially a biblical theology of allegiance in the New Testament. He offers a fantastic overview of soteriology, discussing how a more dynamic (and biblical) understanding of faith/allegiance fits in with other topics like: election, justification (Bates tackles issues pertaining to the New Perspective on Paul excellently), the role of works, assurance of salvation, and eschatology. And he presents it all in a way that's not overly academic; he writes for a broad audience.
I love that he offers a well-argued alternative to the sort of "Calvinism Lite" that is so en vogue among contemporary evangelicalism. A lot of the books I see that are in this middle-ground between the classroom and the church are very much influenced (consciously or not) by Reformed theology. Bates' views, while not incompatible with Calvinism by any means (as he constantly points out), do serve to highlight where that tradition may be at odds with (or perhaps not the best synthesis of) the biblical data.
Bates has done the church a service by taking some of the best and most important insights of recent New Testament scholarship and making them accessible for the church, and his book deserves a careful read. It's well worth asking the question: When you use the word "faith," does it really mean what you think it means? And more importantly, does it mean what the Bible means? I'll be looking forward to future works by this author.
June 24, 2020
Excellent. This book fills many gaps for the average person in the West who was raised in a "invite Jesus into your heart and you will be saved" salvation-centric culture.
Bates argues that faith, the greek word pistis, has been too narrowly defined as mere belief and intellectual assent. Rather, using biblical texts as well as other ancient sources from the period of the New Testament, Bates shows that pistis should be better interpreted as allegiance rather than mere faith.
In my younger years, I remember having no real tools as to how to connect the Gospels to the New Testament letters, and why to define exactly why Jesus was raised in the dead and how to include it in my gospel presentations. I was trained to think of the cross as the focus, and our response to Jesus death - to be saved from my sins so I can go to heaven when I die.
Yet Jesus over and over again seemed to, without shame, invite people from day one to a life of direct obedience to himself, which certainly includes faith, but more broadly, allegiance to himself as the new King. And that is where the book becomes very pastoral: if we respond with allegiance to the Gospel (which is the life, death and resurrection and ascension of Jesus that Bates helpfully defines in 8 parts), that changes how I invite people to the Gospel. This book has the opportunity, thus, to radically transform how we think of discipleship and how we approach it, as well as evangelism (realizing that in many ways the two are not as distinct as we may think they are).
This book has been yet another very helpful resource in my recent theological journeys that I hope continues to make an impact. It's not a salvation by works, as if Bates is saying we must get out log book out to keep track of all of our allegiant deeds to Jesus in hopes that we have done enough to be saved. Rather, it's a reworking of our vocabulary and conceptual thinking about the Gospel and salvation. It has the opportunity to rid us of the anxiety of "how do I know if I am going to heaven and not going to hell?" thinking. It raises the bar to biblical standards of expectations of Christians, and what we are calling them to and also holding them to during their life as a disciple. Knowing that grace is available when we stumble and sin, pistis is really a call to "come and die" as we follow Christ daily. Thus, allegiance to our new Lord and King Jesus was our salvation, is our salvation, and will lead to our salvation. Just as Paul said, "if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved" - Romans 10:9
Bates argues that faith, the greek word pistis, has been too narrowly defined as mere belief and intellectual assent. Rather, using biblical texts as well as other ancient sources from the period of the New Testament, Bates shows that pistis should be better interpreted as allegiance rather than mere faith.
In my younger years, I remember having no real tools as to how to connect the Gospels to the New Testament letters, and why to define exactly why Jesus was raised in the dead and how to include it in my gospel presentations. I was trained to think of the cross as the focus, and our response to Jesus death - to be saved from my sins so I can go to heaven when I die.
Yet Jesus over and over again seemed to, without shame, invite people from day one to a life of direct obedience to himself, which certainly includes faith, but more broadly, allegiance to himself as the new King. And that is where the book becomes very pastoral: if we respond with allegiance to the Gospel (which is the life, death and resurrection and ascension of Jesus that Bates helpfully defines in 8 parts), that changes how I invite people to the Gospel. This book has the opportunity, thus, to radically transform how we think of discipleship and how we approach it, as well as evangelism (realizing that in many ways the two are not as distinct as we may think they are).
This book has been yet another very helpful resource in my recent theological journeys that I hope continues to make an impact. It's not a salvation by works, as if Bates is saying we must get out log book out to keep track of all of our allegiant deeds to Jesus in hopes that we have done enough to be saved. Rather, it's a reworking of our vocabulary and conceptual thinking about the Gospel and salvation. It has the opportunity to rid us of the anxiety of "how do I know if I am going to heaven and not going to hell?" thinking. It raises the bar to biblical standards of expectations of Christians, and what we are calling them to and also holding them to during their life as a disciple. Knowing that grace is available when we stumble and sin, pistis is really a call to "come and die" as we follow Christ daily. Thus, allegiance to our new Lord and King Jesus was our salvation, is our salvation, and will lead to our salvation. Just as Paul said, "if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved" - Romans 10:9
March 28, 2018
Bates’ contends that in Protestant traditions of Christianity, the understanding of phrases like “salvation by faith alone”, “faith in Jesus” or just “faith” typically revolve around a concept that emerged out of the Reformation. Having “faith in Jesus” centers on the idea that all one must do to receive the gift of salvation is to realize his/her inability to do anything to merit salvation and instead place his/her trust in the finished work of Jesus’ atoning crucifixion. Reformers like Luther and Calvin gave voice to this understanding, and was further refined by evangelists like John Wesley and George Whitefield. Protestant revivalist style preachers in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries such as Charles Finney, Dwight L. Moody and Billy Graham carried this concept to the masses.
Bates robustly argues that this typical Protestant understanding of faith is in need of its own redemption. First, Bates suggests that the very use of the English word “faith” is problematic. The word “faith” increasingly in Western style cultures carries negative connotations of being hostile to rationality. Claiming that one has “faith in faith” or simply that one just has “faith” is ambiguous at best and carries the connotation that “faith” is irrational. Second, according to Bates, is that most Protestant salvific systems do not adequately convey a connection between faith and works. Bates thus believes that instead of saying that we are saved by faith alone, Bates proposes that a better translation, and thus a better conceptualization, is that of salvation by allegiance alone.
Bates makes this bold claim when he states “With regard to eternal salvation, rather than speaking of belief, trust, or faith in Jesus, we should speak of fidelity to Jesus as cosmic Lord or allegiance to Jesus the king…it captures what is most vital for salvation—mental assent, sworn fidelity, and embodied loyalty." (p5)
Bates will spend the rest of the book teasing out what he means by allegiance and the three areas that encompass that allegiance (mental assent, sworn fidelity, embodied loyalty). This is not the sum total of the book. For instance Bates offers a rich and much needed refocus on Jesus as the enthroned King of the cosmos. An idea that is put forward in the Gospels and by Paul yet often not included in what is called "faith" or presented in explanations of "the gospel". If you are seeking a book to that offers a path to deepening your understanding of "faith" then this is your book.
Bates robustly argues that this typical Protestant understanding of faith is in need of its own redemption. First, Bates suggests that the very use of the English word “faith” is problematic. The word “faith” increasingly in Western style cultures carries negative connotations of being hostile to rationality. Claiming that one has “faith in faith” or simply that one just has “faith” is ambiguous at best and carries the connotation that “faith” is irrational. Second, according to Bates, is that most Protestant salvific systems do not adequately convey a connection between faith and works. Bates thus believes that instead of saying that we are saved by faith alone, Bates proposes that a better translation, and thus a better conceptualization, is that of salvation by allegiance alone.
Bates makes this bold claim when he states “With regard to eternal salvation, rather than speaking of belief, trust, or faith in Jesus, we should speak of fidelity to Jesus as cosmic Lord or allegiance to Jesus the king…it captures what is most vital for salvation—mental assent, sworn fidelity, and embodied loyalty." (p5)
Bates will spend the rest of the book teasing out what he means by allegiance and the three areas that encompass that allegiance (mental assent, sworn fidelity, embodied loyalty). This is not the sum total of the book. For instance Bates offers a rich and much needed refocus on Jesus as the enthroned King of the cosmos. An idea that is put forward in the Gospels and by Paul yet often not included in what is called "faith" or presented in explanations of "the gospel". If you are seeking a book to that offers a path to deepening your understanding of "faith" then this is your book.
May 22, 2017
Matthew Bates has written a compelling critique of "salvation by 'faith' alone." By evaluating the use of the "faith" word group in and out of Scripture, Bates concludes that a far better implication is something along the lines of "allegiance" instead of "mental assent." Without abandoning grace and election, Bates argues convincingly that we've truncated the gospel when we insist that "faith alone" implies nothing more than mental agreement with the idea that Jesus wants to save us.
Written for a broad audience, there are times that you will want more evidence or more explanation. But, over all, there is more than adequate material to cause you to think afresh about your approach to Christ.
If Jesus is Lord (which He is) then there should be some sense of submission to that Lordship apparent in the life of the believer. Allegiance seems to capture that "something" we need. Performing that allegiance leads to a life of good works (certainly appropriate in light of Titus, e.g.). The question becoming, doesn't that lead to works-oriented salvation? Bates would argue "No" and "Yes." "No" in the sense that we can't earn our redemption. "Yes" in the sense that we are going to be judged by our works. Bates articulately argues for "enacted" or "embodied" allegiance.
Pg 92 provides the three movements Bates suggests: 1) mental affirmation that the gospel is true, 2) professed fealty to Jesus alone as the cosmic Lord, and 3) enacted loyalty through obedience to Jesus as the king.
This should be mandatory reading for all church leaders.
Written for a broad audience, there are times that you will want more evidence or more explanation. But, over all, there is more than adequate material to cause you to think afresh about your approach to Christ.
If Jesus is Lord (which He is) then there should be some sense of submission to that Lordship apparent in the life of the believer. Allegiance seems to capture that "something" we need. Performing that allegiance leads to a life of good works (certainly appropriate in light of Titus, e.g.). The question becoming, doesn't that lead to works-oriented salvation? Bates would argue "No" and "Yes." "No" in the sense that we can't earn our redemption. "Yes" in the sense that we are going to be judged by our works. Bates articulately argues for "enacted" or "embodied" allegiance.
Pg 92 provides the three movements Bates suggests: 1) mental affirmation that the gospel is true, 2) professed fealty to Jesus alone as the cosmic Lord, and 3) enacted loyalty through obedience to Jesus as the king.
This should be mandatory reading for all church leaders.
February 16, 2020
This may be the most challenging book I've read in a long while. Bates' main argument is that the Greek word 'pistis' means not simply faith as in 'belief' but more as in 'allegiance.' He then explores the ramifications of that expanded definition in areas such as the contents of the gospel, salvation, justification, and discipleship.
Bates makes a generally compelling argument, and his message is one that the Church should ponder. His theology in this book doesn't fit neatly into any particular model; in fact, there are several points in the book where I questioned his adherence to Protestantism altogether. Even so, at the end of each section, I found his conclusions to be at least plausible, if not entirely convincing.
I would offer two areas of critique. First, Bates uses the word 'allegiance' extensively in this book in place of the word 'faith.' I think it may be easier, and sometimes more accurate, to use the term 'allegiant faith,' since he makes the point that allegiance is a facet of the Greek 'pistis.' Secondly, it was distracting that Bates used his own translation of New Testament texts, instead of using a standard translation and interjecting his word for 'pistis' when appropriate.
Bates makes a generally compelling argument, and his message is one that the Church should ponder. His theology in this book doesn't fit neatly into any particular model; in fact, there are several points in the book where I questioned his adherence to Protestantism altogether. Even so, at the end of each section, I found his conclusions to be at least plausible, if not entirely convincing.
I would offer two areas of critique. First, Bates uses the word 'allegiance' extensively in this book in place of the word 'faith.' I think it may be easier, and sometimes more accurate, to use the term 'allegiant faith,' since he makes the point that allegiance is a facet of the Greek 'pistis.' Secondly, it was distracting that Bates used his own translation of New Testament texts, instead of using a standard translation and interjecting his word for 'pistis' when appropriate.
April 11, 2024
Very good discourse on salvation. For some time now I've been considering faith as allegiance, or something similar, so this was one of those "at the right time" books. An understanding of Jesus as King helps us to get away from the "me" focused nature of recent salvation discourse which I think is helpful for our current climate. It also stands as a criticism and warning to those Christians who seem to think their actions have no bearing on their salvation or faith because "once saved always saved."
It also does a good job of blending the intellectual and practical aspects of faith. I have often found it strange that for so many Christians its as if intellectual/emotional assent is so divorced from actions that one cannot even contemplate how works could be important. On the other hand there are those who are so bent on doing good that they forget, or don't care, who it is their serving. I also liked the whole "Yes Jesus is your friend, but He's also the King and you shouldn't forget that." I think it's good to remember that Jesus is our friend, it is good to have a relationship with God, but not by forgetting that God is a mighty King. A good King, the Best King, but still King.
It also does a good job of blending the intellectual and practical aspects of faith. I have often found it strange that for so many Christians its as if intellectual/emotional assent is so divorced from actions that one cannot even contemplate how works could be important. On the other hand there are those who are so bent on doing good that they forget, or don't care, who it is their serving. I also liked the whole "Yes Jesus is your friend, but He's also the King and you shouldn't forget that." I think it's good to remember that Jesus is our friend, it is good to have a relationship with God, but not by forgetting that God is a mighty King. A good King, the Best King, but still King.
January 4, 2018
I got this book because of high praise by Scot McKnight. It basically argues that we should use the word “allegiance” instead of “faith” to conceptualize our Christian journey. I like that idea. Faith has become a series of propositions to which we assent, and then we imagine that we are saved. The book pushes us to see faith as allegiance to Jesus Christ as king. My issue with the book is that after making such a promising start, it then reduces the entire journey to eight propositions. The Gospel is understood to be 8 points. It is highly Pauline in its articulation, and orthodox, but neglects how Jesus understood and articulated the Gospel (despite somehow devoting a whole chapter to that topic).
June 28, 2025
Good and profound basic insight with solid exegesis about the nature of “faith” as embodied, covenant loyalty more than mere intellectual assent as it’s come to denote in western theology and praxis. Touched on some important implications for other areas of theology and spirituality. Ultimately though the book is trying to do a little too much and is a little unorganized. The book is from a little while ago and doesn’t incorporate some advances in Pauline scholarship in recent years. He does a good job remaining confessionally neutral which I appreciated. Would recommend to other but wouldn’t be my first choice.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 137 reviews