What do you think?
Rate this book
Gospel Allegiance: What Faith in Jesus Misses for Salvation in Christ
Challenging popular misconceptions about the biblical gospel, Matthew Bates shows that it is different, wider, and more beautiful than we have been led to believe.
270 pages, Paperback
First published September 17, 2019
118 people are currently reading
1005 people want to read
About the author
Matthew W. Bates
11 books108 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 113 reviews
January 4, 2020
Gospel Allegiance: What Faith in Jesus Misses for Salvation in Christ by Matthew W. Bates is published by Baker Publishing Group.
I arrived at this party late, which is no surprise for those who know me. This book is a follow-up to Bates's previous book Salvation by Allegiance Alone, which is also published by Baker. Early on, he notes areas where the more recent book clarifies or adds to the other book, but I was not able to engage in that part of the discussion. (That also happens when you arrive late to a party.)
This book presents some rather strong cases for rethinking and restating some familiar truths and beliefs. This book locks horns, gently but aggressively with some of my theological mentors such as John Piper and the late R. C. Sproul. This book calls for some unconventional, but according to Bates, Biblical ways of understanding salvation. And this book provides the strongest bridge I have encountered for Christians of all orthodox heritages to recognize one another as believers, and by this I mean that Bates's definition and explanation of being Christian brings Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox, Reformed folks and Arminian/Wesleyans into the same big tent. By the way, he does this without glossing over what he views as errors among some of the groups.
The main contention of this book is that the Greek word pistis, which we commonly translate as faith, is better translated as allegiance. Okay, so what?, you might ask. The point is that faith is often defined, documented, and defended as a personal response to Jesus that gives us a ticket to heaven when we die. In contrast, allegiance is kingly, more comprehensive, more communal and corporate, and more focused on both the here and now as well as a future eternal state.
We don't just "accept Jesus" (I am cringing while writing that) and then go on about our way. Of course, those who have long emphasized Lordship in the controversies related to that term or who emphasize a Christian world and life view have already frequently pressed the point that salvation is not just eternal fire insurance.
Christ is King, and this is the proclamation that should be made in our preaching, teaching, and lives. Just as when the Allies liberated Nazi-held territories, they were proclaiming that the land areas and people were now under American, British, or French rule, so we proclaim Jesus as the one to whom we owe allegiance. We recognize in this that our allegiance, like our faith, works, and intentions, are weak, often faltering, often failing completely, but we still acknowledge Christ as King.
Everyone, except for me of course, muddles the definitions and explanations of salvation. Catholics are a particular target among us Protestant folk. Although Dr, Bates attained his Ph.D. from Notre Dame and teaches in a Catholic institution, he delivers some pretty hefty gut punches to the Catholic scheme of salvation. Yet, I find his overall approach quite appealing since I know Catholics who affirm everything that I say in the Apostles' Creed and who do not say that their hope is based on doing enough good stuff or lighting enough candles.
I have had to give some careful thought to what Bates says about election. His focus is on God's predestination of the Church, the body of Christ--local and universal--rather than on individual believers. Ephesians 1, a favorite passage among us Calvinists, is the passage under discussion in the book. Even a longtime Calvinist like me has to consider ways that Ephesians 1 speaks corporately and not of individuals. I do admit that we all read too much of the Bible as though it was God's Word specifically to me, myself, and I rather than to God's people in time and history. My experience in reading this book was not one of complete agreement with every point. I had lots of "Amens," but quite a few times when I had to file away what is said so that I can think about it, preferably in the light of Bible reading. That is, in my opinion, the mark of a good book.
Plenty of reasons can be added to what I have said above for reading and discussing this book. I have been tossed and turned by a number of theological controversies pitting this group or faction against that group or faction. The gunfire has usually been intense, has often included lots of helpful insights, and yet has usually resulted in Christians plunging swords into the bellies of each other while letting the stinking world go to Hell.
But surely we can read, disagree, think, modify, and expand our understanding of salvation. I am not a theologian, so I cannot let go of the rope swing (see pictures above) and plunge into these waters. But I can be blessed by those tidbits of wisdom I latch onto as a result of serious reading or an idle thought that comes from this book.
I arrived at this party late, which is no surprise for those who know me. This book is a follow-up to Bates's previous book Salvation by Allegiance Alone, which is also published by Baker. Early on, he notes areas where the more recent book clarifies or adds to the other book, but I was not able to engage in that part of the discussion. (That also happens when you arrive late to a party.)
This book presents some rather strong cases for rethinking and restating some familiar truths and beliefs. This book locks horns, gently but aggressively with some of my theological mentors such as John Piper and the late R. C. Sproul. This book calls for some unconventional, but according to Bates, Biblical ways of understanding salvation. And this book provides the strongest bridge I have encountered for Christians of all orthodox heritages to recognize one another as believers, and by this I mean that Bates's definition and explanation of being Christian brings Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox, Reformed folks and Arminian/Wesleyans into the same big tent. By the way, he does this without glossing over what he views as errors among some of the groups.
The main contention of this book is that the Greek word pistis, which we commonly translate as faith, is better translated as allegiance. Okay, so what?, you might ask. The point is that faith is often defined, documented, and defended as a personal response to Jesus that gives us a ticket to heaven when we die. In contrast, allegiance is kingly, more comprehensive, more communal and corporate, and more focused on both the here and now as well as a future eternal state.
We don't just "accept Jesus" (I am cringing while writing that) and then go on about our way. Of course, those who have long emphasized Lordship in the controversies related to that term or who emphasize a Christian world and life view have already frequently pressed the point that salvation is not just eternal fire insurance.
Christ is King, and this is the proclamation that should be made in our preaching, teaching, and lives. Just as when the Allies liberated Nazi-held territories, they were proclaiming that the land areas and people were now under American, British, or French rule, so we proclaim Jesus as the one to whom we owe allegiance. We recognize in this that our allegiance, like our faith, works, and intentions, are weak, often faltering, often failing completely, but we still acknowledge Christ as King.
Everyone, except for me of course, muddles the definitions and explanations of salvation. Catholics are a particular target among us Protestant folk. Although Dr, Bates attained his Ph.D. from Notre Dame and teaches in a Catholic institution, he delivers some pretty hefty gut punches to the Catholic scheme of salvation. Yet, I find his overall approach quite appealing since I know Catholics who affirm everything that I say in the Apostles' Creed and who do not say that their hope is based on doing enough good stuff or lighting enough candles.
I have had to give some careful thought to what Bates says about election. His focus is on God's predestination of the Church, the body of Christ--local and universal--rather than on individual believers. Ephesians 1, a favorite passage among us Calvinists, is the passage under discussion in the book. Even a longtime Calvinist like me has to consider ways that Ephesians 1 speaks corporately and not of individuals. I do admit that we all read too much of the Bible as though it was God's Word specifically to me, myself, and I rather than to God's people in time and history. My experience in reading this book was not one of complete agreement with every point. I had lots of "Amens," but quite a few times when I had to file away what is said so that I can think about it, preferably in the light of Bible reading. That is, in my opinion, the mark of a good book.
Plenty of reasons can be added to what I have said above for reading and discussing this book. I have been tossed and turned by a number of theological controversies pitting this group or faction against that group or faction. The gunfire has usually been intense, has often included lots of helpful insights, and yet has usually resulted in Christians plunging swords into the bellies of each other while letting the stinking world go to Hell.
But surely we can read, disagree, think, modify, and expand our understanding of salvation. I am not a theologian, so I cannot let go of the rope swing (see pictures above) and plunge into these waters. But I can be blessed by those tidbits of wisdom I latch onto as a result of serious reading or an idle thought that comes from this book.
June 15, 2020
Matthew Bates wants us to not take the gospel lightly. He wants to emphasise Jesus is king - and that will change the way we live. He is (rightly so) annoyed at the many out there who call themselves Christians but live the same as everyone around them. Each element of his thesis interweaves with one another coherently, but...
Each of Bates' points are dubious. Jesus' kingship has always been part of the gospel. No reformer would have asserted otherwise. But to deny that Christians are saved by trusting in the Lord Jesus' completed work for us is antithetical to the rediscovery of the gospel that occurred in the reformation.
The idea that the Greek word for faith can mean allegiance is true, but Bates does not demonstrate that it should be used in that respect for the gospel. He appeals to Morgan's work on faith in Roman times, but Morgan herself admits that the word pistis (faith) "has a substantial and at times complex interiority to match its relational and active aspects." That is, it is not simply an outward facing thing that includes our actions. This redefinition allows him to include our good works into how we are saved - which goes against Paul's argument in Romans and Galatians. He redefines the concept of grace, appealing to a past work by Barclay, yet Barclay's conclusion around grace emphasizes its "unconditioned" nature. In fact, this is what Barclay says about the "return-gift" of faith: "a declaration of bankruptcy, a radical and shattering recognition that the only capital in God’s economy is the gift of Christ crucified and risen."
Please be careful in reading this book, because it subtly changes the gospel and downplays humanity's sin and God's grace in saving us.
Each of Bates' points are dubious. Jesus' kingship has always been part of the gospel. No reformer would have asserted otherwise. But to deny that Christians are saved by trusting in the Lord Jesus' completed work for us is antithetical to the rediscovery of the gospel that occurred in the reformation.
The idea that the Greek word for faith can mean allegiance is true, but Bates does not demonstrate that it should be used in that respect for the gospel. He appeals to Morgan's work on faith in Roman times, but Morgan herself admits that the word pistis (faith) "has a substantial and at times complex interiority to match its relational and active aspects." That is, it is not simply an outward facing thing that includes our actions. This redefinition allows him to include our good works into how we are saved - which goes against Paul's argument in Romans and Galatians. He redefines the concept of grace, appealing to a past work by Barclay, yet Barclay's conclusion around grace emphasizes its "unconditioned" nature. In fact, this is what Barclay says about the "return-gift" of faith: "a declaration of bankruptcy, a radical and shattering recognition that the only capital in God’s economy is the gift of Christ crucified and risen."
Please be careful in reading this book, because it subtly changes the gospel and downplays humanity's sin and God's grace in saving us.
August 14, 2019
This book is too important for the church to ignore. Period.
Having read Bates' previous book Salvation by Allegiance Alone: Rethinking Faith, Works, and the Gospel of Jesus the King , I was delighted to learn that he had a follow-up volume that was more accessible for lay readers. I was even more delighted when the publisher provided me with an advanced copy in exchange for an honest review.
Bates' goal is a "truer, better gospel proclamation." This is vitally important in an age where western Christians are increasingly more gospel-ignorant than the oft-touted and increasingly popular marketing slogan, "gospel-centered." Bates is a capable New Testament scholar who seems more committed to rightly reading the text of Scripture than toeing the line of any particular ecclesial camp or theological system. While Bates sometimes offers up hard pills for us western evangelicals to swallow, it's presented in a gracious manner and always accompanied by a cold cup of sound exegesis.
Here's his project in a nutshell: The gospel = Jesus is the saving king. The purpose of the gospel = global allegiance to King Jesus. Our response to the gospel = Revoking other allegiances (repentance) and pledging allegiance to Jesus alone.
Bates' charge to adopt the language of "allegiance" over "faith" helps us enjoy a more biblically appropriate and personally holistic response to the gospel of the kingdom. If our focus downplays the kingship of Jesus and overemphasizes the *benefits* of the gospel, then we run the risk of not seeing and proclaiming Jesus for who he really is. When the biblical gospel is heralded it draws those who proclaim allegiance to King Jesus into a robust life marked by discipleship, love, and good works. This turns the world upside down, unseats dark powers and principalities, and ushers justice and wisdom into a dark and ignorant world.
I won't spoil the book for you, but I hold it up to everyone as an absolute must-read. This is a timely (if not late!) correction to popular formulations of the gospel message. It is simply too important to ignore. My prayer is that this book takes flight and is the impetus for a more allegiant church of King Jesus!
Having read Bates' previous book Salvation by Allegiance Alone: Rethinking Faith, Works, and the Gospel of Jesus the King , I was delighted to learn that he had a follow-up volume that was more accessible for lay readers. I was even more delighted when the publisher provided me with an advanced copy in exchange for an honest review.
Bates' goal is a "truer, better gospel proclamation." This is vitally important in an age where western Christians are increasingly more gospel-ignorant than the oft-touted and increasingly popular marketing slogan, "gospel-centered." Bates is a capable New Testament scholar who seems more committed to rightly reading the text of Scripture than toeing the line of any particular ecclesial camp or theological system. While Bates sometimes offers up hard pills for us western evangelicals to swallow, it's presented in a gracious manner and always accompanied by a cold cup of sound exegesis.
Here's his project in a nutshell: The gospel = Jesus is the saving king. The purpose of the gospel = global allegiance to King Jesus. Our response to the gospel = Revoking other allegiances (repentance) and pledging allegiance to Jesus alone.
Bates' charge to adopt the language of "allegiance" over "faith" helps us enjoy a more biblically appropriate and personally holistic response to the gospel of the kingdom. If our focus downplays the kingship of Jesus and overemphasizes the *benefits* of the gospel, then we run the risk of not seeing and proclaiming Jesus for who he really is. When the biblical gospel is heralded it draws those who proclaim allegiance to King Jesus into a robust life marked by discipleship, love, and good works. This turns the world upside down, unseats dark powers and principalities, and ushers justice and wisdom into a dark and ignorant world.
I won't spoil the book for you, but I hold it up to everyone as an absolute must-read. This is a timely (if not late!) correction to popular formulations of the gospel message. It is simply too important to ignore. My prayer is that this book takes flight and is the impetus for a more allegiant church of King Jesus!
June 15, 2020
Upon a casual glance, "Gospel Allegiance" makes you feel good. It makes you feel like Bates has done his homework. It makes you feel his zeal and grasp of the gospel and ancient world suffices to radicalise a claim of saving allegiance to Jesus. You put down the book, sip your tea and contemplate the new ways your life ought to show allegiance to King Jesus. If that's where you leave it, you will probably walk away satisfied. If however, you give it another moment of thought, you may notice how Bates' argument doesn't make any sense.
In the opening chapters he establishes a rendering of faith as "allegiance". Though this doesn't fit all examples of biblical faith, get this, it fits some! From here, he spring boards off several verses which back his point, while seemingly avoiding the context around them. One of my favourites is using John 5:29 to defend a confirmation that works save, while ignoring John 5:24 which highlights salvation is found outside of works.
His absolutism of these verses is used to back his point that the gospel is the Kingship of Jesus, however in this absolutism he ignores several other offices of Christ such as prophet, priest or servant. Perhaps if these had been considered Bates would have a more nuanced understanding of faith which includes both allegiance and confidence in the saving work of Christ.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think Allegiance to Jesus is a bad thing. I think it's excellent. But I do think what Bates has accomplished in Gospel Allegiance is misrepresent the divine relationship Christians are to have with God which emphasises his power to save people despite any work we do to secure salvation.
Titus 2:11-14
In the opening chapters he establishes a rendering of faith as "allegiance". Though this doesn't fit all examples of biblical faith, get this, it fits some! From here, he spring boards off several verses which back his point, while seemingly avoiding the context around them. One of my favourites is using John 5:29 to defend a confirmation that works save, while ignoring John 5:24 which highlights salvation is found outside of works.
His absolutism of these verses is used to back his point that the gospel is the Kingship of Jesus, however in this absolutism he ignores several other offices of Christ such as prophet, priest or servant. Perhaps if these had been considered Bates would have a more nuanced understanding of faith which includes both allegiance and confidence in the saving work of Christ.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think Allegiance to Jesus is a bad thing. I think it's excellent. But I do think what Bates has accomplished in Gospel Allegiance is misrepresent the divine relationship Christians are to have with God which emphasises his power to save people despite any work we do to secure salvation.
Titus 2:11-14
September 16, 2019
I read Matthew Bates' previous book, "Salvation by Allegiance Alone," shortly after its release in 2017 (it was one of the first books I read after finishing my MA with all of its assigned readings). So when I found out he had another book addressing pistis as allegiance coming out, focused more toward non-academic Christians, I immediately pre-ordered it. And then when I was offered a chance to read an advance copy, I jumped on the opportunity.
"Gospel Allegiance" takes the foundation laid in "Salvation by Allegiance Alone" and builds the superstructure of how these ideas actually can be worked out in the life of the church and Christian witness. As in the preceding volume, Bates skillfully navigates the straits between the Scylla of cheap grace and easy believism on side, and the Charybdis of performance-based legalism on the other.
One of the strongest points Bates makes is that when we truncate the gospel message to just a few elements—which, while being key components of the gospel, are not the whole gospel—it ends up impacting our understanding of salvation itself, as well as the response expected of those who hear the gospel. While the gospel includes the facts that Jesus died and rose again, it also includes the facts of his ascension, exaltation, enthronement as universal King, and future return as righteous Judge. Consequently, the proper response to the gospel is not only believing Jesus died for my sins—though that is necessary—but going beyond mental assent to facts, or trusting Christ to save me, and moving on to allegiance to the King who saves.
Since Bates is dealing with getting the gospel message—and our response to it—correct, he isn't afraid to dive into the troubled waters of the soteriology debates. He adeptly points out the problems with concepts such as unconditional individual election before creation and limited atonement in light of the entirety of the biblical witness, refusing to allow the preconceptions of a particular systematic to impose themselves on the text of Scripture. "When we synthesize what the Bible teaches about personal salvation, we must respect the whole biblical witness regarding the timing and coordination of God's agency with respect to personal human agency" (Kindle location 1981).
I find "Gospel Allegiance" a very helpful book that leads us to think about the whole gospel, and challenges us to give our whole selves to the saving King in response. I highly recommend that anyone involved in gospel preaching or personal evangelism read this book and let it impact how you present the gospel message. Maybe if we present a more complete gospel message, and let our call for response mirror the more complete response of embodied allegiance rather than only belief in a set of facts or a petition for forgiveness, we will see more disciples of Christ being made, instead of only converts to a philosophical system, which is all-too-soon abandoned by many when life's circumstances don't meet expectations.
"Gospel Allegiance" takes the foundation laid in "Salvation by Allegiance Alone" and builds the superstructure of how these ideas actually can be worked out in the life of the church and Christian witness. As in the preceding volume, Bates skillfully navigates the straits between the Scylla of cheap grace and easy believism on side, and the Charybdis of performance-based legalism on the other.
One of the strongest points Bates makes is that when we truncate the gospel message to just a few elements—which, while being key components of the gospel, are not the whole gospel—it ends up impacting our understanding of salvation itself, as well as the response expected of those who hear the gospel. While the gospel includes the facts that Jesus died and rose again, it also includes the facts of his ascension, exaltation, enthronement as universal King, and future return as righteous Judge. Consequently, the proper response to the gospel is not only believing Jesus died for my sins—though that is necessary—but going beyond mental assent to facts, or trusting Christ to save me, and moving on to allegiance to the King who saves.
Since Bates is dealing with getting the gospel message—and our response to it—correct, he isn't afraid to dive into the troubled waters of the soteriology debates. He adeptly points out the problems with concepts such as unconditional individual election before creation and limited atonement in light of the entirety of the biblical witness, refusing to allow the preconceptions of a particular systematic to impose themselves on the text of Scripture. "When we synthesize what the Bible teaches about personal salvation, we must respect the whole biblical witness regarding the timing and coordination of God's agency with respect to personal human agency" (Kindle location 1981).
I find "Gospel Allegiance" a very helpful book that leads us to think about the whole gospel, and challenges us to give our whole selves to the saving King in response. I highly recommend that anyone involved in gospel preaching or personal evangelism read this book and let it impact how you present the gospel message. Maybe if we present a more complete gospel message, and let our call for response mirror the more complete response of embodied allegiance rather than only belief in a set of facts or a petition for forgiveness, we will see more disciples of Christ being made, instead of only converts to a philosophical system, which is all-too-soon abandoned by many when life's circumstances don't meet expectations.
June 15, 2020
I really wanted to like this book... Matthew makes some really apt observations about the state of the church today: that Christians are actually confused about the gospel and that misunderstandings of the gospel as being all about "do I have enough faith?" is awful for people's assurance that Jesus has saved them. Then he makes some interesting observations like if you only look at 2 Tim 2:8 and Romansa 1:1-4 the cross doesn't even get mentioned in their gospel summaries so we need to think hard if we are preaching "Jesus is your butler who wants to save you!" or "Jesus is your King who rescued you!". Also he observes that Faith in some places can be thought of as allegiance. But then...
He just goes crazy!! He takes those two observations and reads them into every passage! He doesn't look at the rest of the gospel passages (e.g. Rom 1:16 or 1 Cor 15:3) until chapter 3 after he's tried to convince you in Chapter 2 that Faith is allegiance but saying (I kid you not) "Faith can mean Allegiance" "Faith doesn't usually mean allegiance" to allegiance is obvious! To make that jump he looks at Morgan's book about 1st century context and some brain scan study (that in the footnotes he admits isn't conclusive at all) to conclude Allegiance is the "obvious actualisation". Obvious to who!? Roman centurions? People who have only ever read 2 Tim 2:8 and Rom 1:1-4?
Instead of getting his "allegiance framework" and taking it for a drive through scripture, theology and practice - showing us it's strengths and weaknesses - then parking it in the theology garage next to "Jesus as Brother, priest, servant, lamb, etc.". No instead he burns down the garage by saying Allegiance is everything! Then throws the "grace and justification" baby out with the "easy-beliveism" bathwater! Saying everyone is wrong about Faith (Calvin, Luther, Piper, Augustine, The Catholics) except him!
Anyway be careful in reading this book. You might come out of it pumped up to serve Jesus as King willing to wash his feet! - but forgetting that He has already perfectly saved you as he washes your feet. That you have nothing to add to your salvation.
He just goes crazy!! He takes those two observations and reads them into every passage! He doesn't look at the rest of the gospel passages (e.g. Rom 1:16 or 1 Cor 15:3) until chapter 3 after he's tried to convince you in Chapter 2 that Faith is allegiance but saying (I kid you not) "Faith can mean Allegiance" "Faith doesn't usually mean allegiance" to allegiance is obvious! To make that jump he looks at Morgan's book about 1st century context and some brain scan study (that in the footnotes he admits isn't conclusive at all) to conclude Allegiance is the "obvious actualisation". Obvious to who!? Roman centurions? People who have only ever read 2 Tim 2:8 and Rom 1:1-4?
Instead of getting his "allegiance framework" and taking it for a drive through scripture, theology and practice - showing us it's strengths and weaknesses - then parking it in the theology garage next to "Jesus as Brother, priest, servant, lamb, etc.". No instead he burns down the garage by saying Allegiance is everything! Then throws the "grace and justification" baby out with the "easy-beliveism" bathwater! Saying everyone is wrong about Faith (Calvin, Luther, Piper, Augustine, The Catholics) except him!
Anyway be careful in reading this book. You might come out of it pumped up to serve Jesus as King willing to wash his feet! - but forgetting that He has already perfectly saved you as he washes your feet. That you have nothing to add to your salvation.
June 15, 2020
What Matthew Bates cares about is getting the Gospel right. He should be commended on this - rightly so, we want to be able to distinguish between what the gospel is proper, and what it's benefits are. He presents us with a framework "Jesus is King." Fresh news for some who preach "easy believism."However, this is turned this into a caricature of most Protestant faith systems.
As a result, he believes faith should be seen as "allegiance." I won't spoil his reasons (you need to do the hard work yourself) but in the end, they are contrary to scripture and entirely unconvincing.
His conclusions are those in which many before him have reached - we need to respond in service to King Jesus - but his thesis relies on an “if/then” relationship with God; a conditional relationship based on the principle of merit. If Jesus is the king, then we need to be allegiant. This is the complete opposite of what Scripture tells us. Consistently it uses a because/therefore, relationship: Because we have been justified by faith alone, we are therefore freed for service.
Matthew Bates would do well to read 2WaystoLive: http://twowaystolive.com
As a result, he believes faith should be seen as "allegiance." I won't spoil his reasons (you need to do the hard work yourself) but in the end, they are contrary to scripture and entirely unconvincing.
His conclusions are those in which many before him have reached - we need to respond in service to King Jesus - but his thesis relies on an “if/then” relationship with God; a conditional relationship based on the principle of merit. If Jesus is the king, then we need to be allegiant. This is the complete opposite of what Scripture tells us. Consistently it uses a because/therefore, relationship: Because we have been justified by faith alone, we are therefore freed for service.
Matthew Bates would do well to read 2WaystoLive: http://twowaystolive.com
December 15, 2024
I really wanted to give this book 5 stars. There was so much that was helpful, challenging, and interesting. Even though I will definitely read it again in the near future, I also had to take a start away.
Bates argues that we should generally think of saving “faith” (Greek: pistis) as “allegiance.” It’s not just mental ascent or even confidence, but whole-life loyalty—allegiance.
What/Who are we “allegiant” to? Jesus as King, which is the central truth of the gospel. He clarifies that the gospel itself, as Scripture describes it, is separate from the benefits of the gospel (justification, sanctification, etc.) and the correct response to it (allegiance to Jesus). He sums up the gospel in 10 parts, which I thought was very wholistic and clarifying.
Throughout this book, he deals with major current talking points in theology/biblical studies like: Jesus as King, union with Christ, faith and works, the New Perspectives on Paul, 2nd Temple Judaism, and Barclay’s View of Grace. He covers a lot of ground and keeps it interesting all along the way.
As much as I appreciate the perspective of this book, like I said, I had to take a star away because of some things that I consider shortcomings. First, as helpful as it is to emphasize the “allegiance” aspect of faith, I don’t think it’s helpful to replace the word “faith” with “allegiance” as Bates proposes. I think faith is a more fully orbed word than allegiance, so it fits better with the flexibility of the word “pistis”. I also think that “allegiance” has a de-personal flavor to it, which is problematic to me. Even though Jesus is the King, he is also our older brother, and united with us as a husband is to his wife. Allegiance is too cold a word for our “pistis” in Christ, in my humble opinion.
A second problem that I have with this book is that Bates overemphasizes corporate realities of salvation. I know he’s trying to push back against our cultural of individualism, but I think he overcorrects.
He closes the book with some pastoral considerations, which is where I think the final problem lies. In his “allegiance” model, he says that we can’t have “perfect” assurance in our standing with God, only strong or “blessed” assurance. This is the cost of his overly corporate reading of passages like Eph 1:13, where we aren’t sealed with the Spirit, only the church is. I think this is a problematic interpretation which leads to a problematic pastoral perspective.
Even with these few issues, I highly recommend the book.
One final note - in the intro, he says this is written for a popular level audience, not scholars and students. But it was very academic with a “popular level” flair here and there. Be warned if you’re looking for a light read!
______
My ⭐️ rating criteria
- ⭐️: I absolutely did not like or totally disagreed with the book and would recommend that no one else read it
- ⭐️⭐️: the book was below average style or content, arguments were very weak, wouldn’t read it again, but wouldn’t beg people not to read it necessarily
- ⭐️⭐️⭐️: a fine book, some helpful information (or a decent story, for the handful of novels I read), maybe I disagreed somewhat, enjoyed it decently well
- ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️: a very good book, information was very helpful, mostly agreed with everything or it was a strong argument even if I disagree, was above-average enjoyable to read
- ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️: incredible book, I enjoyed it more than most other books, I want to read it again in the future, I will be telling everyone to read it for the next few weeks
Bates argues that we should generally think of saving “faith” (Greek: pistis) as “allegiance.” It’s not just mental ascent or even confidence, but whole-life loyalty—allegiance.
What/Who are we “allegiant” to? Jesus as King, which is the central truth of the gospel. He clarifies that the gospel itself, as Scripture describes it, is separate from the benefits of the gospel (justification, sanctification, etc.) and the correct response to it (allegiance to Jesus). He sums up the gospel in 10 parts, which I thought was very wholistic and clarifying.
Throughout this book, he deals with major current talking points in theology/biblical studies like: Jesus as King, union with Christ, faith and works, the New Perspectives on Paul, 2nd Temple Judaism, and Barclay’s View of Grace. He covers a lot of ground and keeps it interesting all along the way.
As much as I appreciate the perspective of this book, like I said, I had to take a star away because of some things that I consider shortcomings. First, as helpful as it is to emphasize the “allegiance” aspect of faith, I don’t think it’s helpful to replace the word “faith” with “allegiance” as Bates proposes. I think faith is a more fully orbed word than allegiance, so it fits better with the flexibility of the word “pistis”. I also think that “allegiance” has a de-personal flavor to it, which is problematic to me. Even though Jesus is the King, he is also our older brother, and united with us as a husband is to his wife. Allegiance is too cold a word for our “pistis” in Christ, in my humble opinion.
A second problem that I have with this book is that Bates overemphasizes corporate realities of salvation. I know he’s trying to push back against our cultural of individualism, but I think he overcorrects.
He closes the book with some pastoral considerations, which is where I think the final problem lies. In his “allegiance” model, he says that we can’t have “perfect” assurance in our standing with God, only strong or “blessed” assurance. This is the cost of his overly corporate reading of passages like Eph 1:13, where we aren’t sealed with the Spirit, only the church is. I think this is a problematic interpretation which leads to a problematic pastoral perspective.
Even with these few issues, I highly recommend the book.
One final note - in the intro, he says this is written for a popular level audience, not scholars and students. But it was very academic with a “popular level” flair here and there. Be warned if you’re looking for a light read!
______
My ⭐️ rating criteria
- ⭐️: I absolutely did not like or totally disagreed with the book and would recommend that no one else read it
- ⭐️⭐️: the book was below average style or content, arguments were very weak, wouldn’t read it again, but wouldn’t beg people not to read it necessarily
- ⭐️⭐️⭐️: a fine book, some helpful information (or a decent story, for the handful of novels I read), maybe I disagreed somewhat, enjoyed it decently well
- ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️: a very good book, information was very helpful, mostly agreed with everything or it was a strong argument even if I disagree, was above-average enjoyable to read
- ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️: incredible book, I enjoyed it more than most other books, I want to read it again in the future, I will be telling everyone to read it for the next few weeks
January 21, 2020
Summary: Contends that our traditional ideas of salvation by faith reflect an inadequate gospel that fails to call people to allegiance to King Jesus.
A couple years ago, Matthew Bates provoked a conversation about the nature of the gospel and faith with his book Salvation by Allegiance Alone (review). Bates' contention is that our traditional statements about salvation by faith fails to capture a critically important element of the gospel, that the coming of Jesus was the coming of a king, whose purpose was to call people from the nations to a new allegiance to Christ as king.
This book expands on this argument, designed for a pastoral rather than theological audience. He engages other authors such as John MacArthur and John Piper who have written about these matters, noting both where they are in agreement and where their understanding of gospel, faith, and works may be deficient. He proposes that our typical rendering of gospel presentations like the "Roman road" are inadequate.
In addition to the pastoral focus, Bates proposes that this book focuses more on the gospel, defining it more precisely and thoroughly. He goes further in his discussion of faith, grace and works. He argues that this is not a different gospel but a re-framing of the gospel. Finally, this study primarily focuses on Paul.
A key to understanding Bates' main idea is this phrase in Romans 16:26 which says, "...so that all the Gentiles might come to the obedience that comes from faith." Bates sees pistis, the word for "faith" as more than simply a mental or emotional disposition but rather "faith-obedience" or allegiance, and also emphasizes the idea that Christ's purpose was to call the nations ("Gentiles") to obedient allegiance to him.
Bates shows in this book how this is not salvation by works and yet how works are saving in the idea of allegiance to the King embodied in a life of obedience. He show how these are distinct in the writing of Paul from works of the law. His discussion of grace is perhaps the most challenging part of the book, both in terms of understanding and in terms of the ideas he presents. He argues that grace may be both unmerited and require bodily reciprocation, and by this, argues against "free grace" movements as cheap and false grace.
In his final chapter, he connects allegiance back to the Great Commission and Jesus call to make disciples. He argues:
Any gospel that makes discipleship optional or additional is a false gospel. Gospel allegiance helps us to understand why faith in Jesus, discipleship, and obedience to his commands to hand in hand. In traditional articulations that place saving faith in opposition to works and the law, it is hard to find a positive place for Jesus's commands. Not so if saving faith is allegiance to the king.
One of the distinctions that I am not at ease with is the distinction he makes between our being saved and our final salvation. He proposes that forgiveness, justification, reconciliation, redemption, adoption, and glory, are benefits of our final salvation. He speaks of all of these in the present as potential benefits. I would contend that they are already realized in our lives by grace in part, while our full realization of these will be in glory.
The value of Bates' work is in his idea of allegiance and how it integrates faith, grace, and obedience, often set in conflict with each other. Furthermore, allegiance reminds us of the ultimate claim Jesus has on our lives above any other allegiances, involving our implicit and embodied obedience. It speaks as a challenge to allegiances to present-day Caesar's and their empires, and all other false gods. It challenges versions of cheap grace that allow people to rationalize persisting in unrepented sin or refusing to advance in one's discipleship and embodied holiness, claiming they have "believed" and are saved by grace. What most impressed me in this book is that it was clear that Bates' concerns for gospel allegiance arise from a passion for the glory of Christ and a desire to see people truly converted, and set upon lives of discipleship. He models the kind of concern that every minister of the gospel ought have to be sure we have not run in vain or labored in vain (Philippians 2:16).
________________________________
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher. The opinions I have expressed are my own.
A couple years ago, Matthew Bates provoked a conversation about the nature of the gospel and faith with his book Salvation by Allegiance Alone (review). Bates' contention is that our traditional statements about salvation by faith fails to capture a critically important element of the gospel, that the coming of Jesus was the coming of a king, whose purpose was to call people from the nations to a new allegiance to Christ as king.
This book expands on this argument, designed for a pastoral rather than theological audience. He engages other authors such as John MacArthur and John Piper who have written about these matters, noting both where they are in agreement and where their understanding of gospel, faith, and works may be deficient. He proposes that our typical rendering of gospel presentations like the "Roman road" are inadequate.
In addition to the pastoral focus, Bates proposes that this book focuses more on the gospel, defining it more precisely and thoroughly. He goes further in his discussion of faith, grace and works. He argues that this is not a different gospel but a re-framing of the gospel. Finally, this study primarily focuses on Paul.
A key to understanding Bates' main idea is this phrase in Romans 16:26 which says, "...so that all the Gentiles might come to the obedience that comes from faith." Bates sees pistis, the word for "faith" as more than simply a mental or emotional disposition but rather "faith-obedience" or allegiance, and also emphasizes the idea that Christ's purpose was to call the nations ("Gentiles") to obedient allegiance to him.
Bates shows in this book how this is not salvation by works and yet how works are saving in the idea of allegiance to the King embodied in a life of obedience. He show how these are distinct in the writing of Paul from works of the law. His discussion of grace is perhaps the most challenging part of the book, both in terms of understanding and in terms of the ideas he presents. He argues that grace may be both unmerited and require bodily reciprocation, and by this, argues against "free grace" movements as cheap and false grace.
In his final chapter, he connects allegiance back to the Great Commission and Jesus call to make disciples. He argues:
Any gospel that makes discipleship optional or additional is a false gospel. Gospel allegiance helps us to understand why faith in Jesus, discipleship, and obedience to his commands to hand in hand. In traditional articulations that place saving faith in opposition to works and the law, it is hard to find a positive place for Jesus's commands. Not so if saving faith is allegiance to the king.
One of the distinctions that I am not at ease with is the distinction he makes between our being saved and our final salvation. He proposes that forgiveness, justification, reconciliation, redemption, adoption, and glory, are benefits of our final salvation. He speaks of all of these in the present as potential benefits. I would contend that they are already realized in our lives by grace in part, while our full realization of these will be in glory.
The value of Bates' work is in his idea of allegiance and how it integrates faith, grace, and obedience, often set in conflict with each other. Furthermore, allegiance reminds us of the ultimate claim Jesus has on our lives above any other allegiances, involving our implicit and embodied obedience. It speaks as a challenge to allegiances to present-day Caesar's and their empires, and all other false gods. It challenges versions of cheap grace that allow people to rationalize persisting in unrepented sin or refusing to advance in one's discipleship and embodied holiness, claiming they have "believed" and are saved by grace. What most impressed me in this book is that it was clear that Bates' concerns for gospel allegiance arise from a passion for the glory of Christ and a desire to see people truly converted, and set upon lives of discipleship. He models the kind of concern that every minister of the gospel ought have to be sure we have not run in vain or labored in vain (Philippians 2:16).
________________________________
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher. The opinions I have expressed are my own.
July 16, 2024
Matthew Bates liefert in dem Buch eine überzeugende Argumentation den Begriff Pistis vor dem Hintergrund des Neuen Testaments (und der Umwelt) zu betrachten. In diesem Zuge fällt auf, dass die aktuellen Schwerpunkte, die viele Denomination im Bezug auf das „Evangelium“ setzen nicht gerade die Bedeutungsfacetten der NT Texte widerspiegeln.
Auch wenn ich nicht mit allen Punkten übereinstimmen würde, regt es extrem zum Nachdenken und genauen lesen an. Außerdem gibt er durch die zugängliche Schreibweise einen guten Einstieg in den Diskurs. Ist also denke ich gerade für die Leser spannend, die nicht mit der New Perspective oder „Paul within Judaism“ vertraut sind.
Die „praktische Implikation“ die zu Beginn angesprochen werden, sind jedoch sehr dürftig und haben mich da etwas enttäuscht.
Trotzdem extrem nice!!
Auch wenn ich nicht mit allen Punkten übereinstimmen würde, regt es extrem zum Nachdenken und genauen lesen an. Außerdem gibt er durch die zugängliche Schreibweise einen guten Einstieg in den Diskurs. Ist also denke ich gerade für die Leser spannend, die nicht mit der New Perspective oder „Paul within Judaism“ vertraut sind.
Die „praktische Implikation“ die zu Beginn angesprochen werden, sind jedoch sehr dürftig und haben mich da etwas enttäuscht.
Trotzdem extrem nice!!
June 29, 2020
The best lies are 99% true. Do not take the Bate! This book will tell you that you are like a bird with a stone strapped to your foot, and that all you need to do is continually pledge your bodily allegiance to Jesus the King, and you will be free! The truth is you are a dead bird and you can not (either initially or ongoingly) pledge your allegiance to Christ apart from God's sufficient grace in Christ gripping your mind and heart such that the Word of Christ revives you and produces lasting trust/dependence.
In the end, Bates peddles a synergistic salvation model with roots in Catholism (ie. spirit-inspired works save you), Arminianism (ie. God is not as free as you are) and the New Perspective (ie. corporate rather than individual election). As I read the scriptures, I find the reformer's seperation between saving trust in the king, and the works that follow, to be a more compelling and God glorifying account of the Biblical data.
P.s. Pistis does not mean allegiance no matter how many times you assert that it does!
Further reading: https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PD...
In the end, Bates peddles a synergistic salvation model with roots in Catholism (ie. spirit-inspired works save you), Arminianism (ie. God is not as free as you are) and the New Perspective (ie. corporate rather than individual election). As I read the scriptures, I find the reformer's seperation between saving trust in the king, and the works that follow, to be a more compelling and God glorifying account of the Biblical data.
P.s. Pistis does not mean allegiance no matter how many times you assert that it does!
Further reading: https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PD...
July 31, 2021
(7/28/21 Edit: I've deleted a much longer review because it just got too personal and, well, long...)
Long have we (Christians) been taught that our main problem is legalism, works-righteousness, or “trying to merit our salvation by performance,” in so many words. This has been the almost constant refrain among many Christians I’ve known, and is a standard assumption in most churches I’ve attended. But there seems to be a growing consensus that this is off the mark. It may be a reductionist holdover from a much more complex protestantism, which in itself had some problems. Whatever the case, it’s getting clearer to me that the Bible simply doesn’t care a whole lot about whether someone is trying to earn their salvation by works. There are lots of the things the Bible does warn about, and that’s not really one of them.
I have been in this place though. Saturated by fear of legalism, working hard to purify my motives, constantly wondering if I'm "being religious." Am I depending on grace-alone enough? Or more often, suspecting others of these failures.
What this whole mindset now looks like to me is: lots of zeal, not much wisdom.
A story: 20-something Bible-dude gets excited about grace and faith according to metaphysical categories, eagerly proselytizing friends, family, and co-workers, many of whom are already Christians, that “it’s not about religion, it’s about relationship.” Bible-dude grows up a little and becomes stern Bible-debater, and hones his game by quoting the same 5 verses no matter what the subject at hand is, and learns to derail nearly every church conversation or meeting into a diatribe about Ephesians 2:8-11. Buttoned-down Bible-debater guy becomes middle-aged, angry-but-confident faux-theology guy who is, just beneath the surface, Bible-bored, because for him every verse in the Bible is about his personal salvation, and vindicating his chosen soteriology. He runs over this ground in his head daily, because that's the main thing- it fairly defines Christianity... but no one really gets that except him and this small cadre of internet preachers he listens to. Shortly, he will transition to ranting about politics, because after all that seems to get so much more done in the world.
Know this guy?
But no, this has been all wrong. The church’s problem has always been Christ. Not works. There is nary a passage in the New Testament that condemns or suspects “works” in general of inhibiting or compromising faith. It’s just not there. When we fail, it is because we fail to see Christ truly. Not because we’ve let something external or active slip into our definition of faith. On top of so many other issues with this idea, we simply use the words to mean very different things than the Bible's usage. The perceived dichotomy between "faith" and "works" -- even for salvation -- is one such misfire. Central to this book, and our problem, is that the notion of "faith" has transmogrified into the psychology of believing. Cognition only. Things, potentially in list form, that someone can say they "believe" are true. "Faith" in common usage has become interchangeable with the word "belief."
But (and, spoiler) “works” and “faith” were never mutually exclusive categories! The theological structure that prides itself on keeping those two mutually exclusive is, essentially, not even theology. As I named it earlier, it's a metaphysic. A philosophical choice which is then "assumed into" selective passages of the Bible. As if God really puts a lot of weight on our distinction between things we do with our minds and things we do with our bodies. The discussion of why and when this cultural-historical shift happened is a fascinating one, and worth some digging.
Vocabulary varies, but a through-line in the cluster of errors we see in this reductionist evangelicalism is the constant anxiety that Christians will substitute “religion” for “true faith” (e.g., Calvinists and charismatics each have their own version of this). We don’t want to be Catholic or liberal or whatever, so the gospel must be accompanied by XYZ subjective response to prove a person is not secretly works-righteous. Unfortunately, this almost always means the gospel will be redefined as XYZ, and when this happens you have about a generation before the gospel is forgotten altogether.
A primary example: the gospel itself is not justification. At the very least, the two are not co-extensive. Justification by faith is not preached to non-believers in, say, the book of Acts; rather it emerges among believers in texts like Galatians to protect the unity of the church. It is about ecclesiology, and it is the result of the gospel. But then a strain of Christianity discovers justification's importance and, in an effort to bring force to their theological argument, adds it to the gospel. Gospel proper is now compromised by anyone who disagrees with them on that article. Believing in Jesus is not enough, one must have the proper beliefs (again, internal & cognitive) about precisely how a person is saved. License is now distributed to True Believers to attack anything that smells awry with a Christian's subjective response as if that were the gospel itself.
What am I talking about? Evangelicals who claim Roman Catholics "aren't really saved," but who themselves have difficulty affirming the basic content of the Nicene Creed, or who routinely flirt with sundry Christological heresies, but by golly it doesn’t really matter as longs as you know you can't earn salvation (and, surprise! they are perfect judges of what constitutes "earning" salvation in someone else).
Not because of Jesus. Remember, the gospel is now about one’s subjective response, not Jesus himself (see what happens here?). In fact, I've noticed you can go a whole, lengthy conversation with these people in which they very carefully explain this faith-works dichotomy without ever mentioning Jesus Christ or any significant content from the Gospels. As soon as you bring this up, there's predictably all sorts of backtracking and "well of COURSE Jesus!" But the cat's out of the bag, the proof's in the pudding. Given the chance to talk about salvation, they would rather discuss the internal nature faith and the ineffectual nature of works than discuss the Son of God.
This is just one example, but each version of the error has a set of criteria by which purity of internal response is judged, and each one fails to be able to define and guarantee that internal response with perfect accuracy and certainty. And so the criteria for “true faith” multiply and expand, extensive purity testing is devised, qualifications and conditions are attached; the true Scotsmen must be vindicated, the false ones unmasked. Whole denominations are anathematized. Things descend into a haze of suspicion: “Some people who call themselves Christians… [insert reprobate belief or behavior here, loudly in case any of them are closeby].” For an unlucky few, the suspicion is turned in upon themselves, and the anxiety that, despite everything, their motives are impure and they are actually “lost” robs large portions of their life.
Ironically, this kind of suspicion and introspection was exactly why Luther left the monastery, and why the doctrine of sola fide was so compelling in the first place. We are liberated from self-flagellation and obsessive standards for a faith-life consumed by attention to Christ himself, not our response. To trust in Christ is precisely not to trust in our faith or its purity or our justification doctrine, because those are inevitably halting and inadequate. A fair number of reviews of Gospel Allegiance object to its premise on exactly this basis- that it introduces a legalism that will destroy assurance by imposing a behavior standard we can never reach. The irony is that that is exactly where evangelicalism’s fide-ism has brought us. The drive to demand a more pure (read: psychologized) faith is the same standards-obsessed moralism the fide-ists were trying to eradicate in the first place.
We have met the enemy, and he is us.
The best solution here is to admit that “faith” actually means something more expansive like “faithfulness” or “allegiance,” and includes deeds whose character is shaped by Christ. The defining feature of faith is not its internality or the exclusion of active deeds, it is the faith-object itself. Active or passive, internal or external, that which moves toward Christ is faith.
Look at that. We just became more Christ-centered.
So Sola fide zealots will line up to attack Bates as a performance-based legalist (as they do, incorrectly, with Bonhoeffer), but we should mark the primary effect of his ideas here: it is not to make us all hop to it and be more morally scrupulous, or put us in a position to boast, but to re-center the faith on Christ himself, to cast faith as embodiment rather than psychology (more in line with the Incarnation itself), and to disrupt the quasi-gnosticism and docetism that evangelicals are constantly holding hands with.
To the bottom line for the main objection here, that this makes works into a saving phenomenon and thus compromises the gospel, there is a pretty clear response: There was never a version of the old faith-concept that excluded the dreaded legalism/works-righteousness in the first place. The old concept simply relocated the source of the problem into the mental sphere, where it takes up residence as one’s purity-of-doctrine, or anxiety about whether one “trusts ‘Jesus alone’ enough.” (“Are you saved? Do you know that you’re saved? Do you know that you know…” etc.) This tendency to slice the bologna ever more thinly to separate legalism from true faith (“religion vs. relationship”), never brought authenticity of faith or integrity of theology. The internalist model of faith never produced free, assured Christianity like it was supposed to, only a more heavily scrutinized psychology and introspection. And lots of gnosticism. Psychologizing the faith doesn't deliver us from the demons, it just indulges new ones.
Bates is one of these voices in evangelicalism pointing out this deficiency and helpfully reconstructing how we look at key Bible words like "faith" and "grace." May their kind increase. The mental health of a lot of people depend on this.
Postscript:
This whole argument puts me in mind of the broad and sweeping trend in the modern epoch to burn the engines hard toward disembodiment and internalism in our worldview. So angels are now thought of as non-physical beings; the soul is a non-physical part of the self that can "detach" from the body, and does so at death; one "remembers" something not by speaking it or acting out the past, but by thinking about it. A "genius" is now simply an uncannily smart person, whereas it used to be the word for a supernatural intelligence that visited someone from outside, not a thing native to our being. I've actually heard it argued that because 1 Corinthians 15 refers to the risen Jesus as "a life-giving Spirit," we shouldn't think of the resurrection as literal and embodied.
Me, me, and more me. That's what we moderns want. And get rid of my body and think of "me" as just a sentient force in the air that could be here even if I were bodily dead.
Long have we (Christians) been taught that our main problem is legalism, works-righteousness, or “trying to merit our salvation by performance,” in so many words. This has been the almost constant refrain among many Christians I’ve known, and is a standard assumption in most churches I’ve attended. But there seems to be a growing consensus that this is off the mark. It may be a reductionist holdover from a much more complex protestantism, which in itself had some problems. Whatever the case, it’s getting clearer to me that the Bible simply doesn’t care a whole lot about whether someone is trying to earn their salvation by works. There are lots of the things the Bible does warn about, and that’s not really one of them.
I have been in this place though. Saturated by fear of legalism, working hard to purify my motives, constantly wondering if I'm "being religious." Am I depending on grace-alone enough? Or more often, suspecting others of these failures.
What this whole mindset now looks like to me is: lots of zeal, not much wisdom.
A story: 20-something Bible-dude gets excited about grace and faith according to metaphysical categories, eagerly proselytizing friends, family, and co-workers, many of whom are already Christians, that “it’s not about religion, it’s about relationship.” Bible-dude grows up a little and becomes stern Bible-debater, and hones his game by quoting the same 5 verses no matter what the subject at hand is, and learns to derail nearly every church conversation or meeting into a diatribe about Ephesians 2:8-11. Buttoned-down Bible-debater guy becomes middle-aged, angry-but-confident faux-theology guy who is, just beneath the surface, Bible-bored, because for him every verse in the Bible is about his personal salvation, and vindicating his chosen soteriology. He runs over this ground in his head daily, because that's the main thing- it fairly defines Christianity... but no one really gets that except him and this small cadre of internet preachers he listens to. Shortly, he will transition to ranting about politics, because after all that seems to get so much more done in the world.
Know this guy?
But no, this has been all wrong. The church’s problem has always been Christ. Not works. There is nary a passage in the New Testament that condemns or suspects “works” in general of inhibiting or compromising faith. It’s just not there. When we fail, it is because we fail to see Christ truly. Not because we’ve let something external or active slip into our definition of faith. On top of so many other issues with this idea, we simply use the words to mean very different things than the Bible's usage. The perceived dichotomy between "faith" and "works" -- even for salvation -- is one such misfire. Central to this book, and our problem, is that the notion of "faith" has transmogrified into the psychology of believing. Cognition only. Things, potentially in list form, that someone can say they "believe" are true. "Faith" in common usage has become interchangeable with the word "belief."
But (and, spoiler) “works” and “faith” were never mutually exclusive categories! The theological structure that prides itself on keeping those two mutually exclusive is, essentially, not even theology. As I named it earlier, it's a metaphysic. A philosophical choice which is then "assumed into" selective passages of the Bible. As if God really puts a lot of weight on our distinction between things we do with our minds and things we do with our bodies. The discussion of why and when this cultural-historical shift happened is a fascinating one, and worth some digging.
Vocabulary varies, but a through-line in the cluster of errors we see in this reductionist evangelicalism is the constant anxiety that Christians will substitute “religion” for “true faith” (e.g., Calvinists and charismatics each have their own version of this). We don’t want to be Catholic or liberal or whatever, so the gospel must be accompanied by XYZ subjective response to prove a person is not secretly works-righteous. Unfortunately, this almost always means the gospel will be redefined as XYZ, and when this happens you have about a generation before the gospel is forgotten altogether.
A primary example: the gospel itself is not justification. At the very least, the two are not co-extensive. Justification by faith is not preached to non-believers in, say, the book of Acts; rather it emerges among believers in texts like Galatians to protect the unity of the church. It is about ecclesiology, and it is the result of the gospel. But then a strain of Christianity discovers justification's importance and, in an effort to bring force to their theological argument, adds it to the gospel. Gospel proper is now compromised by anyone who disagrees with them on that article. Believing in Jesus is not enough, one must have the proper beliefs (again, internal & cognitive) about precisely how a person is saved. License is now distributed to True Believers to attack anything that smells awry with a Christian's subjective response as if that were the gospel itself.
What am I talking about? Evangelicals who claim Roman Catholics "aren't really saved," but who themselves have difficulty affirming the basic content of the Nicene Creed, or who routinely flirt with sundry Christological heresies, but by golly it doesn’t really matter as longs as you know you can't earn salvation (and, surprise! they are perfect judges of what constitutes "earning" salvation in someone else).
Not because of Jesus. Remember, the gospel is now about one’s subjective response, not Jesus himself (see what happens here?). In fact, I've noticed you can go a whole, lengthy conversation with these people in which they very carefully explain this faith-works dichotomy without ever mentioning Jesus Christ or any significant content from the Gospels. As soon as you bring this up, there's predictably all sorts of backtracking and "well of COURSE Jesus!" But the cat's out of the bag, the proof's in the pudding. Given the chance to talk about salvation, they would rather discuss the internal nature faith and the ineffectual nature of works than discuss the Son of God.
This is just one example, but each version of the error has a set of criteria by which purity of internal response is judged, and each one fails to be able to define and guarantee that internal response with perfect accuracy and certainty. And so the criteria for “true faith” multiply and expand, extensive purity testing is devised, qualifications and conditions are attached; the true Scotsmen must be vindicated, the false ones unmasked. Whole denominations are anathematized. Things descend into a haze of suspicion: “Some people who call themselves Christians… [insert reprobate belief or behavior here, loudly in case any of them are closeby].” For an unlucky few, the suspicion is turned in upon themselves, and the anxiety that, despite everything, their motives are impure and they are actually “lost” robs large portions of their life.
Ironically, this kind of suspicion and introspection was exactly why Luther left the monastery, and why the doctrine of sola fide was so compelling in the first place. We are liberated from self-flagellation and obsessive standards for a faith-life consumed by attention to Christ himself, not our response. To trust in Christ is precisely not to trust in our faith or its purity or our justification doctrine, because those are inevitably halting and inadequate. A fair number of reviews of Gospel Allegiance object to its premise on exactly this basis- that it introduces a legalism that will destroy assurance by imposing a behavior standard we can never reach. The irony is that that is exactly where evangelicalism’s fide-ism has brought us. The drive to demand a more pure (read: psychologized) faith is the same standards-obsessed moralism the fide-ists were trying to eradicate in the first place.
We have met the enemy, and he is us.
The best solution here is to admit that “faith” actually means something more expansive like “faithfulness” or “allegiance,” and includes deeds whose character is shaped by Christ. The defining feature of faith is not its internality or the exclusion of active deeds, it is the faith-object itself. Active or passive, internal or external, that which moves toward Christ is faith.
Look at that. We just became more Christ-centered.
So Sola fide zealots will line up to attack Bates as a performance-based legalist (as they do, incorrectly, with Bonhoeffer), but we should mark the primary effect of his ideas here: it is not to make us all hop to it and be more morally scrupulous, or put us in a position to boast, but to re-center the faith on Christ himself, to cast faith as embodiment rather than psychology (more in line with the Incarnation itself), and to disrupt the quasi-gnosticism and docetism that evangelicals are constantly holding hands with.
To the bottom line for the main objection here, that this makes works into a saving phenomenon and thus compromises the gospel, there is a pretty clear response: There was never a version of the old faith-concept that excluded the dreaded legalism/works-righteousness in the first place. The old concept simply relocated the source of the problem into the mental sphere, where it takes up residence as one’s purity-of-doctrine, or anxiety about whether one “trusts ‘Jesus alone’ enough.” (“Are you saved? Do you know that you’re saved? Do you know that you know…” etc.) This tendency to slice the bologna ever more thinly to separate legalism from true faith (“religion vs. relationship”), never brought authenticity of faith or integrity of theology. The internalist model of faith never produced free, assured Christianity like it was supposed to, only a more heavily scrutinized psychology and introspection. And lots of gnosticism. Psychologizing the faith doesn't deliver us from the demons, it just indulges new ones.
Bates is one of these voices in evangelicalism pointing out this deficiency and helpfully reconstructing how we look at key Bible words like "faith" and "grace." May their kind increase. The mental health of a lot of people depend on this.
Postscript:
This whole argument puts me in mind of the broad and sweeping trend in the modern epoch to burn the engines hard toward disembodiment and internalism in our worldview. So angels are now thought of as non-physical beings; the soul is a non-physical part of the self that can "detach" from the body, and does so at death; one "remembers" something not by speaking it or acting out the past, but by thinking about it. A "genius" is now simply an uncannily smart person, whereas it used to be the word for a supernatural intelligence that visited someone from outside, not a thing native to our being. I've actually heard it argued that because 1 Corinthians 15 refers to the risen Jesus as "a life-giving Spirit," we shouldn't think of the resurrection as literal and embodied.
Me, me, and more me. That's what we moderns want. And get rid of my body and think of "me" as just a sentient force in the air that could be here even if I were bodily dead.
June 6, 2025
In some ways, Gospel Allegiance is a more popular level version of Salvation By Allegiance Alone; it covers a lot of the same material but is an easier read. But it is also a follow-up, building on the previous book by going deeper and adding some practical/pastoral insights. You could read Gospel Allegiance on its own, but you really need to read Salvation By Allegiance Alone first, to get the whole picture.
In contrast to a popular understanding of what the Gospel is (the salvation message of individual justification by grace through faith in the atoning work of Jesus on the cross) Bates offers a 10-part presentation of the Gospel:
The Gospel is that Jesus the King
1) preexisted as God the Son,
2) was sent by the Father,
3) took on human flesh in fulfillment to God's promises to David,
4) died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,
5) was buried,
6) was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,
7) appeared to many witnesses,
8) is enthroned at the right hand of God as the ruling Christ,
9) has sent the Holy Spirit to his people to effect his rule, and
10) will come again as final judge to rule.
Many understand pistis (faith) as personal interior trust or confidence in Jesus' work on our behalf. Bates, however, helps the reader to see shades of meaning to pistis (faith) that we often miss: outward, embodied loyalty ("allegiance"). For Bates, allegiance is expressed in repentance, trusting loyalty, and baptism.
I think Bates is onto something, in line with Scot McKnight, Tom Wright, Michael Heiser, John Barclay, Dallas Willard, and many other pastors and theologians that I have read and learned from. Although many theologians and pastors may disagree with or downplay the King Jesus Gospel, I think the end result is mostly the same: faith is not just mental assent or personal inward confidence, but is, to some degree, holistic (inward and outward), expressed through how we actually live (obedience either as a result of one's faith or as a part of what it means to have faith). In my experience in ministry, believing loyalty (Heiser) or allegiance (Bates) captures this holistic sense well, especially in cultures or contexts where it is common to hear phrases like: "all you have to do is believe Jesus died for you", "pray the sinners prayer", "invite Jesus into your heart", and "once saved, always saved" (all phrases that can be easily misunderstood or just miss the plot). Anyways, I'm sure Bates will continue to take some heat for the Gospel Allegiance model, but I think anyone who gives him a fair reading will find much to appreciate.
In contrast to a popular understanding of what the Gospel is (the salvation message of individual justification by grace through faith in the atoning work of Jesus on the cross) Bates offers a 10-part presentation of the Gospel:
The Gospel is that Jesus the King
1) preexisted as God the Son,
2) was sent by the Father,
3) took on human flesh in fulfillment to God's promises to David,
4) died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,
5) was buried,
6) was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,
7) appeared to many witnesses,
8) is enthroned at the right hand of God as the ruling Christ,
9) has sent the Holy Spirit to his people to effect his rule, and
10) will come again as final judge to rule.
Many understand pistis (faith) as personal interior trust or confidence in Jesus' work on our behalf. Bates, however, helps the reader to see shades of meaning to pistis (faith) that we often miss: outward, embodied loyalty ("allegiance"). For Bates, allegiance is expressed in repentance, trusting loyalty, and baptism.
I think Bates is onto something, in line with Scot McKnight, Tom Wright, Michael Heiser, John Barclay, Dallas Willard, and many other pastors and theologians that I have read and learned from. Although many theologians and pastors may disagree with or downplay the King Jesus Gospel, I think the end result is mostly the same: faith is not just mental assent or personal inward confidence, but is, to some degree, holistic (inward and outward), expressed through how we actually live (obedience either as a result of one's faith or as a part of what it means to have faith). In my experience in ministry, believing loyalty (Heiser) or allegiance (Bates) captures this holistic sense well, especially in cultures or contexts where it is common to hear phrases like: "all you have to do is believe Jesus died for you", "pray the sinners prayer", "invite Jesus into your heart", and "once saved, always saved" (all phrases that can be easily misunderstood or just miss the plot). Anyways, I'm sure Bates will continue to take some heat for the Gospel Allegiance model, but I think anyone who gives him a fair reading will find much to appreciate.
December 17, 2024
I finished Bates' Salvation by Allegiance Alone a few weeks ago and wanted to learn more of his argument fleshed out in this "non-academic" book (written two years after). In one sentence, this is how I feel about the book: allegiance to Jesus the King is a potent and helpful idea, but its still only a part of the picture. I'm not sure it's as ultimate an idea as Bates makes it out to be.
I share a lot of similar thoughts as the 1-star reviews here on Goodreads, but the thing I really didn't like about this book was its combative, self-righteous tone (something his first book didn't have). He name drops popular preachers and theologians (actual legends and brother mans in Christ) and essentially says they've got it wrong—though not without trying to show what they got right. I don't think that Bates gives us satisfying reasons for why they were wrong and he is right, but that's too much to write up here. In any case, I think we should give Bates the benefit of the doubt when he says he's doing this because communicating the "true gospel" matters. Although I still feel his approach and tone isn't justified.
Briefly, I disagree with his overemphasis on Jesus as King (to the expense of his other 'offices'—as important as Jesus' kingship is) and that the enthronement of Christ is more crucial ("the climax of the gospel") than the cross and resurrection.
Despite this, I appreciate the implications that we can draw from Jesus being King and that faith has a dimension of allegiance to him (including discipleship which is "the path to salvation"). I also appreciate Bates' ecumenical project in this book—trying to bring unity across denominational lines (Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox)—while also pointing out their errors.
I don't consider reading this book a waste of my time. I'm glad that I had my presuppositions challenged and refined and I'm definitely going to be adopting some of these ideas into my understanding of my faith.
I share a lot of similar thoughts as the 1-star reviews here on Goodreads, but the thing I really didn't like about this book was its combative, self-righteous tone (something his first book didn't have). He name drops popular preachers and theologians (actual legends and brother mans in Christ) and essentially says they've got it wrong—though not without trying to show what they got right. I don't think that Bates gives us satisfying reasons for why they were wrong and he is right, but that's too much to write up here. In any case, I think we should give Bates the benefit of the doubt when he says he's doing this because communicating the "true gospel" matters. Although I still feel his approach and tone isn't justified.
Briefly, I disagree with his overemphasis on Jesus as King (to the expense of his other 'offices'—as important as Jesus' kingship is) and that the enthronement of Christ is more crucial ("the climax of the gospel") than the cross and resurrection.
Despite this, I appreciate the implications that we can draw from Jesus being King and that faith has a dimension of allegiance to him (including discipleship which is "the path to salvation"). I also appreciate Bates' ecumenical project in this book—trying to bring unity across denominational lines (Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox)—while also pointing out their errors.
I don't consider reading this book a waste of my time. I'm glad that I had my presuppositions challenged and refined and I'm definitely going to be adopting some of these ideas into my understanding of my faith.
September 21, 2024
This book made me think more than anything else I’ve read in the last year. There are two basic ideas Bates presents 1) the gospel is a royal proclamation that Jesus is the saving king 2) that allegiance not faith is a more appropriate translation for pistis than faith in certain contexts (usually when in relation to responding to a royal proclamation).
He’s pursuing gospel accuracy and I think he nails it in regard to the royal gospel. Gospel language texts are concerned with highlighting Jesus’ resurrection and enthronement more so than they are with the cross. This doesn’t remove the cross from the gospel at all but rather makes it the “dramatic centre” not the “theological centre”.
His argument for an allegiant response I am less a fan of. Its strength seems to depend on a few too many other debates. Bates takes time to show how the New Perspective on Paul and pistis christou as faithfulness of Christ strengthen the case. Neither of these are bad things but nor are they rock solid places to build an argument from. He does have strong discussion on how works better fit in an allegiance model than an inward faith model and there are some thoughts for me to chew on there.
All in all I agree with his end: to see gospel accuracy and wholly devoted followers of Christ. How he gets there I am not entirely on board with, but I don’t think he crosses any lines he shouldn’t. Lots to think about and that’s what books should do isn’t it.
He’s pursuing gospel accuracy and I think he nails it in regard to the royal gospel. Gospel language texts are concerned with highlighting Jesus’ resurrection and enthronement more so than they are with the cross. This doesn’t remove the cross from the gospel at all but rather makes it the “dramatic centre” not the “theological centre”.
His argument for an allegiant response I am less a fan of. Its strength seems to depend on a few too many other debates. Bates takes time to show how the New Perspective on Paul and pistis christou as faithfulness of Christ strengthen the case. Neither of these are bad things but nor are they rock solid places to build an argument from. He does have strong discussion on how works better fit in an allegiance model than an inward faith model and there are some thoughts for me to chew on there.
All in all I agree with his end: to see gospel accuracy and wholly devoted followers of Christ. How he gets there I am not entirely on board with, but I don’t think he crosses any lines he shouldn’t. Lots to think about and that’s what books should do isn’t it.
March 29, 2022
Hard to rate a book when you don't feel qualified to judge its contents. But I can say w/ confidence that it reveals and questions simplistic assumptions that many (evangelical) Christians unknowingly carry regarding the biblical gospel, salvation, faith, works, and their relationships to one another. Even if one is not ultimately persuaded by Bates' proposals, they will be forced to sharpen their own thinking by being made to answer them. I can also say that the book covers a *ton* of ground, but w/ great brevity. As such, I'd give both Bates and his interlocutors the benefit of the doubt that they would have much more to say and say in response than what is laid out here. As such as such, this book is a great starting point, but probably not a great end point.
March 15, 2022
3 stars [Theology]
(W: 3, U: 2.57, T: 2.75)
Exact rating: 2.77
#22 of 43 in genre
The thesis of this book, whether you end up agreeing or not, is a worthy topic of consideration and discussion.
Writing
The topic is weighty and the author's organization reflected it. Above average in total (see the breakdown at the end of the review for specifics).
Truth
Bates's arguments were coherent in progression, but lacked full-orbed treatment in the details. Sections not well-argued were pp.71-93, 149-169 (almost all of Ch. 5), and 177-192 (the first half of Ch. 6). In Ch. 5 he resorted to repetition to make up for depth, and while he cited others he seemed to only brush the details. Crucially in Ch. 6, Bates defended against two interpretations of Romans 2:5-8, but did not robustly make the case for his interpretation.
I say the above even though I already agreed with several of his main premises before reading the book.
Use
The author, to his credit, named names and engaged specific arguments. Since he ultimately did not knock his thesis out, and the pacing was mediocre, and the Body was somewhat dense, what would have been a [3] rating was depreciated concerning its utility.
Takeaway
Definitely worth a read to anyone interested in Theology or Apologetics. While it has its faults, it is clearer on the question of "What is the Gospel?" than other books I have read.
_______
//W lexical 3.13, syntactic 2.75 (stitching 2.5, cleanliness 3), semantic 4, dynamism 2.57, pacing 2.5, linearity & organization 3.07 (linearity 2.63, very tight and coherent 3.5)
//T macro 3.25, micro 2-2.75 = 2.38
(W: 3, U: 2.57, T: 2.75)
Exact rating: 2.77
#22 of 43 in genre
The thesis of this book, whether you end up agreeing or not, is a worthy topic of consideration and discussion.
Writing
The topic is weighty and the author's organization reflected it. Above average in total (see the breakdown at the end of the review for specifics).
Truth
Bates's arguments were coherent in progression, but lacked full-orbed treatment in the details. Sections not well-argued were pp.71-93, 149-169 (almost all of Ch. 5), and 177-192 (the first half of Ch. 6). In Ch. 5 he resorted to repetition to make up for depth, and while he cited others he seemed to only brush the details. Crucially in Ch. 6, Bates defended against two interpretations of Romans 2:5-8, but did not robustly make the case for his interpretation.
I say the above even though I already agreed with several of his main premises before reading the book.
Use
The author, to his credit, named names and engaged specific arguments. Since he ultimately did not knock his thesis out, and the pacing was mediocre, and the Body was somewhat dense, what would have been a [3] rating was depreciated concerning its utility.
Takeaway
Definitely worth a read to anyone interested in Theology or Apologetics. While it has its faults, it is clearer on the question of "What is the Gospel?" than other books I have read.
_______
//W lexical 3.13, syntactic 2.75 (stitching 2.5, cleanliness 3), semantic 4, dynamism 2.57, pacing 2.5, linearity & organization 3.07 (linearity 2.63, very tight and coherent 3.5)
//T macro 3.25, micro 2-2.75 = 2.38
June 23, 2021
2021 reads: 15/52
Rating: 4 stars?
Rating: 4 stars?
Read
October 8, 2019What is the gospel? Many pastors today write books on the topic and talk about how central it is and how important it is to be proclaiming the good news. Sadly, many of them don’t have the good news right, and these are not the liberals. These are conservative God-honoring pastors who truly want to build up the church. The gospel becomes all about what happens individually in a person’s life. Justification by faith is said to be the gospel or in some cases I’ve seen such as saying Calvinism is the gospel.
My wife and I once attended a church where the pastor at the end of every sermon gave a call to accept Jesus as savior. Unfortunately, it seemed like the whole goal every time was to get someone to go to heaven. It’s as if it’s decided that the whole point of Jesus coming and dying and rising again is all about the next life and not here.
Matthew Bates says this must change. Now while it sounds like he’s wanting to change the gospel, what he’s wanting to change is our perception. He wants the gospel to go beyond forgiveness of sins. He’s not opposed to that as it’s certainly included in the message and he’s not opposed to justification by faith, but what is the gospel?
The gospel is about Jesus coming and living and dying and rising again and thus, being the Messiah, the King of the Jews, and everyone else for that matter. We treat Messiah like it’s a name. I have even had atheists ask me why a Jewish guy would have a Greek last name, as if Jesus was the son of Mr. and Mrs. Christ. The religion of Islam stresses that Jesus is the Christ, but it gives no content to this whatsoever.
When we say Jesus is the Messiah, we mean He is the king and He came to institute the Kingdom of God on Earth. Our response to this is not intellectual assent which is normally meant by faith. Instead, what is required is a life of allegiance. This does not mean that we earn our salvation, but that our lives model what we say we believe.
The kingship of Jesus means that we are not just agreeing with a proposition, but living lives of loyalty to the king. When we get the gospel wrong, we make the gospel be all about what happens to us. The gospel is all about what Jesus did and who He is. You could give a gospel presentation today to people that would not require Jesus being the Messiah or being the king. We are doing something wrong at that point.
Bates’s message then is that this a more biblical way of viewing salvation. Salvation is something that God does in us, but we willingly submit to him with a life of faith lived outward in allegiance to him. Bates does take on some of our modern pastors who emphasize too much justification by faith. He doesn’t disagree with them, but he does say that we need to move beyond that. He does have some problems with Catholicism, though he does not say Catholics are not Christians and is concerned when any Christian is restricted from partaking of the Lord’s Supper.
This is stuff I have already believed, but once you see it spelled out, it’s hard to not see it in other places. When I hear someone give a gospel presentation or read it now, it seems so lacking. While this is something I have even done a sermon on, it is something that needs to be stressed. We have made Christianity be about a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, which is reducing Jesus down to the buddy Jesus idea, and not about Jesus being king. When I introduce myself at a Celebrate Recovery meeting, I do not describe myself as a faithful believer in Jesus, but rather as a faithful servant of king Jesus.
I hope more pastors and more Christians read Bates’s book. Bates is doing the church a great service. He is taking the material of scholars and giving it to the public on these issues in a way that is easy to understand. This book is highly readable for the layman and I recommend it greatly.
In Christ,
Nick Peters
My wife and I once attended a church where the pastor at the end of every sermon gave a call to accept Jesus as savior. Unfortunately, it seemed like the whole goal every time was to get someone to go to heaven. It’s as if it’s decided that the whole point of Jesus coming and dying and rising again is all about the next life and not here.
Matthew Bates says this must change. Now while it sounds like he’s wanting to change the gospel, what he’s wanting to change is our perception. He wants the gospel to go beyond forgiveness of sins. He’s not opposed to that as it’s certainly included in the message and he’s not opposed to justification by faith, but what is the gospel?
The gospel is about Jesus coming and living and dying and rising again and thus, being the Messiah, the King of the Jews, and everyone else for that matter. We treat Messiah like it’s a name. I have even had atheists ask me why a Jewish guy would have a Greek last name, as if Jesus was the son of Mr. and Mrs. Christ. The religion of Islam stresses that Jesus is the Christ, but it gives no content to this whatsoever.
When we say Jesus is the Messiah, we mean He is the king and He came to institute the Kingdom of God on Earth. Our response to this is not intellectual assent which is normally meant by faith. Instead, what is required is a life of allegiance. This does not mean that we earn our salvation, but that our lives model what we say we believe.
The kingship of Jesus means that we are not just agreeing with a proposition, but living lives of loyalty to the king. When we get the gospel wrong, we make the gospel be all about what happens to us. The gospel is all about what Jesus did and who He is. You could give a gospel presentation today to people that would not require Jesus being the Messiah or being the king. We are doing something wrong at that point.
Bates’s message then is that this a more biblical way of viewing salvation. Salvation is something that God does in us, but we willingly submit to him with a life of faith lived outward in allegiance to him. Bates does take on some of our modern pastors who emphasize too much justification by faith. He doesn’t disagree with them, but he does say that we need to move beyond that. He does have some problems with Catholicism, though he does not say Catholics are not Christians and is concerned when any Christian is restricted from partaking of the Lord’s Supper.
This is stuff I have already believed, but once you see it spelled out, it’s hard to not see it in other places. When I hear someone give a gospel presentation or read it now, it seems so lacking. While this is something I have even done a sermon on, it is something that needs to be stressed. We have made Christianity be about a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, which is reducing Jesus down to the buddy Jesus idea, and not about Jesus being king. When I introduce myself at a Celebrate Recovery meeting, I do not describe myself as a faithful believer in Jesus, but rather as a faithful servant of king Jesus.
I hope more pastors and more Christians read Bates’s book. Bates is doing the church a great service. He is taking the material of scholars and giving it to the public on these issues in a way that is easy to understand. This book is highly readable for the layman and I recommend it greatly.
In Christ,
Nick Peters
August 27, 2019
I remember the day I was listening to a friend preach on the meaning of faith, that understanding it is like light refracting through a diamond resulting in multiple layers when understood biblically. It was that same weekend I saw Bates’ Salvation by Allegiance Alone book pop up for pre-order. My friend concluded that the best way to understand pistis was the concept of allegiance… I screen shot an image of Bates book and sent it to him right way.
We’ve known something was missing for a while, but just haven’t been able to put our finger on it. The systematics of so many theologians cohered logically, but still didn’t seem to reflect the full truth of the inspired narrative that’s been revealed to us. Finally the discussions are striking oil and the gospel is regaining the bite it once had. Bates’ latest book shouldn’t stand alone – though it’s capable of doing so. It should be read alongside the work of N.T. Wright, Scot McKnight, and others. I make this point to emphasize that Gospel Allegiance isn’t a crazy rogue rebel detached from community and scholarship – its roots are planted firmly in the discussion of Jesus’ royal identity and 1st century Jewish expectation.
Gospel Allegiance rejects the modern abridged versions of good news that we’ve been handed by so many well-meaning pioneers, and seeks to return to the original meanings of euangelion and pistis. Time for ignoring the conversation is over. Bates’ is naming names of popular level preachers and pastors and lovingly offering a nuanced, but necessary, correction to the heart of our narrative – and our personal agendas. Abstract belief has had its day - the inaugurated kingdom is calling us back to an embodied gospel.
Buy this book. Please consider it deeply. Then, help your believing friends become allegiant followers of King Jesus.
We’ve known something was missing for a while, but just haven’t been able to put our finger on it. The systematics of so many theologians cohered logically, but still didn’t seem to reflect the full truth of the inspired narrative that’s been revealed to us. Finally the discussions are striking oil and the gospel is regaining the bite it once had. Bates’ latest book shouldn’t stand alone – though it’s capable of doing so. It should be read alongside the work of N.T. Wright, Scot McKnight, and others. I make this point to emphasize that Gospel Allegiance isn’t a crazy rogue rebel detached from community and scholarship – its roots are planted firmly in the discussion of Jesus’ royal identity and 1st century Jewish expectation.
Gospel Allegiance rejects the modern abridged versions of good news that we’ve been handed by so many well-meaning pioneers, and seeks to return to the original meanings of euangelion and pistis. Time for ignoring the conversation is over. Bates’ is naming names of popular level preachers and pastors and lovingly offering a nuanced, but necessary, correction to the heart of our narrative – and our personal agendas. Abstract belief has had its day - the inaugurated kingdom is calling us back to an embodied gospel.
Buy this book. Please consider it deeply. Then, help your believing friends become allegiant followers of King Jesus.
August 26, 2019
Love. This. Book.
I will be getting a copy of “Gospel Allegiance” for all of my friends and family, and have suggested it as my church’s next book study.
I’ve long felt that there was something missing from the Romans Road version of salvation I grew up with - and the recognition of Jesus as KING Jesus, first and foremost, is the missing piece of the puzzle. The author, Matthew Bates, is indeed scholarly but he writes for Everyman and makes his message about the Kingship of Jesus accessible to all. He is a self-proclaimed religious “mutt” with no leanings toward a specific denomination - he frames the gospel in a way most of us have never thought of before and stays true to Scripture rather than the dogma of a particular church.
In this book, Bates untangles the mess that the gospel has become (I’m looking at you, Mr. Televangelist) and does so in the most riveting way. I was hooked from the first page. Yes, the only inerrant word is the Bible (it was authored by God, after all) but to the list of earthly all-time greats - Lewis, Bonhoeffer, Chesterton, and the like - I would add the name “Bates.” There, I said it. “Gospel Allegiance” is that good.
If you ever wanted to know the REAL meaning of the gospel - read this. Then pass it on.
I will be getting a copy of “Gospel Allegiance” for all of my friends and family, and have suggested it as my church’s next book study.
I’ve long felt that there was something missing from the Romans Road version of salvation I grew up with - and the recognition of Jesus as KING Jesus, first and foremost, is the missing piece of the puzzle. The author, Matthew Bates, is indeed scholarly but he writes for Everyman and makes his message about the Kingship of Jesus accessible to all. He is a self-proclaimed religious “mutt” with no leanings toward a specific denomination - he frames the gospel in a way most of us have never thought of before and stays true to Scripture rather than the dogma of a particular church.
In this book, Bates untangles the mess that the gospel has become (I’m looking at you, Mr. Televangelist) and does so in the most riveting way. I was hooked from the first page. Yes, the only inerrant word is the Bible (it was authored by God, after all) but to the list of earthly all-time greats - Lewis, Bonhoeffer, Chesterton, and the like - I would add the name “Bates.” There, I said it. “Gospel Allegiance” is that good.
If you ever wanted to know the REAL meaning of the gospel - read this. Then pass it on.
June 15, 2020
Bates helpfully shows the importance of preaching the enthronement of Christ, the vital role that good works play in the Christian life and he shows the need to respond rightly to God’s grace. However, Bates's arguments are filled with major shortcomings in the areas of exegesis and theological coherency. Despite his well intentions, Bates presents his readers with a reductionist gospel, that provides the basis for his truncated definition of faith as allegiance, which demonstrates his ‘not-so-sovereign’ understanding of the grace of God. Bates ultimately brings his readers to a soteriological synergism and works-based religion that offers no hope and no salvation.
June 12, 2021
On its face, Bates’ soteriology is as commendably Christocentric as his gospel. Christ’s "resurrection-effecting verdict" of innocence sits over and empowers the whole model. He is both path and prize. Indeed, Bates’ precision is useful. The heart of the gospel is the achievements of Christ. His kingship and exaltation are often neglected elements of these: certainly no Christ can be offered other than him whom God made both Lord and Messiah (Acts 2:36). The Christ of the gospel is the Christ of authority, victory, and supremacy and any gospel-response must take account of these facts.
But the kingly veneer is thinner than it seems; for Bates, justification is not wholly assigned to Christ. When it comes to salvation accomplished, Christ may be all, but when salvation is applied, man returns to the stage. Bates’ Christ, active in the past, is effectively passive in the present. God has given the gift. And it must be received through allegiance. So it is the quality of man’s reception of this gift, the quality of his allegiance, that forms the basis for his ultimate justification.
Bates’ gospel may mention the cross, but he effectively removes the man upon it and the beggars from its foot. Sinners who can only meekly receive, are instead called to march in hope of their obedience being sufficient to render them righteous. This book doesn't provide the gospel precision Bates was aiming for. Its a Bates and Switch - by making "Christ" the centre, Bates moved him to the periphery.
The Christian life is not the blind struggle of faithful Hiroo Onoda, but the Christ-fixed faith of blind Bartimaeus, sitting by the road, crying to his king “have mercy on me!” (Mark 10:48). The Reformation brought a more dynamic view of Christ, and of how he might be grasped by believers. Bates gives in his book no compelling reason to depart from it.
But the kingly veneer is thinner than it seems; for Bates, justification is not wholly assigned to Christ. When it comes to salvation accomplished, Christ may be all, but when salvation is applied, man returns to the stage. Bates’ Christ, active in the past, is effectively passive in the present. God has given the gift. And it must be received through allegiance. So it is the quality of man’s reception of this gift, the quality of his allegiance, that forms the basis for his ultimate justification.
Bates’ gospel may mention the cross, but he effectively removes the man upon it and the beggars from its foot. Sinners who can only meekly receive, are instead called to march in hope of their obedience being sufficient to render them righteous. This book doesn't provide the gospel precision Bates was aiming for. Its a Bates and Switch - by making "Christ" the centre, Bates moved him to the periphery.
The Christian life is not the blind struggle of faithful Hiroo Onoda, but the Christ-fixed faith of blind Bartimaeus, sitting by the road, crying to his king “have mercy on me!” (Mark 10:48). The Reformation brought a more dynamic view of Christ, and of how he might be grasped by believers. Bates gives in his book no compelling reason to depart from it.
August 23, 2019
I thought this book was one which provided support for a more holistic worldview. For me personally it provided detailed and nuanced support for my life as a Christian. The points he makes throughout this work are well argued and the author provides significant historical context throughout. It was an exciting experience to read this book and to share important parts with my wife and friends.
I have well over 3,000 books in my library and this book is definitely in the top ten. It should be used in Churches to educate parishioners on what the gospel is. The author expands the view of what the gospel is, with an emphasis on enthronement as follow:
The Gospel
The gospel is that Jesus the king
1. preexisted as God the Son,
2. was sent by the Father,
3. took on human flesh in fulfillment of God’s promises to David,
4. died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,
5. was buried,
6. was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,
7. appeared to many witnesses,
8. is enthroned at the right hand of God as the ruling Christ,
9. has sent the Holy Spirit to his people to effect his rule, and
10. will come again as final judge to rule.
I highly reommend this book as it brought coherence and correspondence to my Christian worldview.
I have well over 3,000 books in my library and this book is definitely in the top ten. It should be used in Churches to educate parishioners on what the gospel is. The author expands the view of what the gospel is, with an emphasis on enthronement as follow:
The Gospel
The gospel is that Jesus the king
1. preexisted as God the Son,
2. was sent by the Father,
3. took on human flesh in fulfillment of God’s promises to David,
4. died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,
5. was buried,
6. was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,
7. appeared to many witnesses,
8. is enthroned at the right hand of God as the ruling Christ,
9. has sent the Holy Spirit to his people to effect his rule, and
10. will come again as final judge to rule.
I highly reommend this book as it brought coherence and correspondence to my Christian worldview.
September 17, 2019
I found Bates' book helpful in sketching out both the historical and theological scope of what the gospel means. A well reasoned and helpful exposition on to how understand the call to allegiance towards Jesus of Nazareth as King of Israel and Lord over creation that will fundamentally reshape the perspective of Christian disciples, both when reading the New Testament and seeking to live faithful Christian lives.
Books on Christian concepts that seek to be historically and theologically astute are often slow and somewhat boring reads. This is the not the case for "Gospel Allegiance." Bates' masterfully shows the historical impact of the claim that "Jesus is Lord," as well as some of the contemporary impacts the call to faithfulness will have for Christians today. Being concise, researched, and well written means I will be using this book for my leadership development classes with my local church leaders just as I currently use Bates' "Salvation by Allegiance Alone" to help them understand the concept of faith.
Books on Christian concepts that seek to be historically and theologically astute are often slow and somewhat boring reads. This is the not the case for "Gospel Allegiance." Bates' masterfully shows the historical impact of the claim that "Jesus is Lord," as well as some of the contemporary impacts the call to faithfulness will have for Christians today. Being concise, researched, and well written means I will be using this book for my leadership development classes with my local church leaders just as I currently use Bates' "Salvation by Allegiance Alone" to help them understand the concept of faith.
April 8, 2023
I highly recommend this book to Christians.
I wanted to reread his previous book but chose to read this one instead and I'm glad I did. I probably need to (definitely want to) read both books again. (this one I listened to as an audiobook which isn't a good format for me on books that are going to make me think).
It touched on so many important aspects of the Gospel in a way that was easy to understand. It explored questions I didn't know enough to ask challenged me to think more. The Gospel I tend to articulate is too small. I want to learn how to speak more holistically. Woodley's Indigenous Theology had the same impact but in a different way--the Gospel I default to talking about is too small. It's not necessarily wrong or even too small to be effective, but it's missing biblical pieces that communicate the bigger truth of what God is doing through Jesus.
This is book has found a place on my top 10 books and I will need to dive a little deeper to be able to better explain why.
I wanted to reread his previous book but chose to read this one instead and I'm glad I did. I probably need to (definitely want to) read both books again. (this one I listened to as an audiobook which isn't a good format for me on books that are going to make me think).
It touched on so many important aspects of the Gospel in a way that was easy to understand. It explored questions I didn't know enough to ask challenged me to think more. The Gospel I tend to articulate is too small. I want to learn how to speak more holistically. Woodley's Indigenous Theology had the same impact but in a different way--the Gospel I default to talking about is too small. It's not necessarily wrong or even too small to be effective, but it's missing biblical pieces that communicate the bigger truth of what God is doing through Jesus.
This is book has found a place on my top 10 books and I will need to dive a little deeper to be able to better explain why.
June 30, 2023
The clarification on the meaning of gospel—Bates insists that it is the installation/enthronement of Jesus as king—is very well-reasoned, if a little overstated. My major problem with the work is that I felt like “allegiance alone” saving is still a little simplistic, even in Bates’ own model. He says at different times that allegiance saves, good works save, belief saves. He takes the Catholic Church to task for insisting on baptism (as a sacrament, but still) saves, yet shouldn’t baptism be seen as a function of allegiance to King Jesus?
Just seemed not as strong as Salvation by Allegiance Alone.
Just seemed not as strong as Salvation by Allegiance Alone.
April 5, 2024
Very engaging read with many good points brought up. It certainly challenged my soteriological affirmations and got me to think deeply about what his academic research has concluded. However, I'm not sure to what extent I would change the use of my language from "faith" to "allegiance". But this is a good read regardless!
January 14, 2021
A good book - a beautiful description of the royal Gospel and a good framework for understanding faith in relation to works. But it doesn’t really contain any new ideas if you’ve read Salvation by Allegiance Alone.
October 24, 2023
I very much enjoyed this book. It was eye-opening and perspective shifting. It completely challenges my view of evangelism, and actually makes me want to tell people about the king! Evangelism for the sake of “saving souls from hell” has always been a turn off for me, but evangelism for the sake of God’s glory is something I can get behind and something I actually want to do!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 113 reviews