Beyond the Salvation Wars: A Review

Bates, Matthew W. Beyond the Salvation Wars: Why Both Protestants and Catholics Must Reimagine How We Are Saved. Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2025.

If you are reading this review to see if Matthew Bates's book is worth reading, I can save you some of the trouble and state that, in general, it is not. I will go into some of the reasons why I believe that this book should be marked and avoided in a moment, but I find it helpful in situations like this to be upfront and honest about my thoughts on the book. If you are still with me and want to understand why I would not recommend such a book, let us dig into it.

Some Positives

Before I get into the negatives, it is worth taking the time to appreciate what is good about the book and the author's intentions behind the book. It is impossible to miss the ongoing debates between various denominations and traditions over almost every aspect of Christian faith. You have the debate between Protestants and Roman Catholics over the gospel, the use of the ordinances or sacraments, the role of Scripture versus tradition, and so on. Surely there has to be some way that we can all be reconciled. This seems to be the heart behind the writing of this book. He desires all Christians everywhere to be reconciled to one another so we can move forward together in unity. A noble desire. After all, this is something we are commanded to seek in multiple places in the New Testament. I also can appreciate Bates's desire to be as clear and precise in his articulation of Scripture, as he sees it, as he can be. Again, a noble undertaking. But that is where the positives end for me.

Thirdwayism and Novelty

From the title of the book, I was skeptical. After all, it is a bold claim to assert that almost everyone who has claimed the name of Christ has misunderstood the foundational tenet of our faith, the gospel. But I thought maybe there would be something substantive to the argument. Perhaps this could be a book worth reading and recommending to others. Predictably, this was not the case. I will get to some of the particulars of this in a second, but first, I want to highlight a foundational issue. Detrick Bonhoeffer, in his book Life Together, says, "He who can no longer listen to his brother will soon be no longer listening to God either; he will be doing nothing but prattle in the presence of God too.” This seems to be what has happened with Bates. It is not that he does not agree with anyone at any point. He makes liberal use of early church writings, particularly the Didache (also known as The Lord's Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations). However, he has no issue with disagreeing with just about everyone on the nature and purpose of the gospel. Instead, he claims that his new proposal, "the King Jesus model" or "gospel allegiance model," is the only correct understanding. As one might expect, some hallmarks often accompany this kind of thinking. Things like substituting a personal translation of Scripture to make points, and redefining words to fit a desired outcome.

Allegiance Over Faith

Bates's central argument is that we have misunderstood the gospel's purpose and application, not its content. To his credit, he articulates the gospel's central elements well. He talks about the Son's eternality, his birth, life, death, resurrection, and ascension into heaven. However, he argues that the focus of the gospel is on the announcement that Jesus is king. Instead of justification by faith, Bates offers, "The gospel is not individualized justification by faith. Rather, the gospel is the power of God for salvation, because it announces the reign of Jesus as king."(p. 47) The kingship of Jesus is undoubtedly an important biblical truth, but the question is, is it the focal point of the gospel? Is it the power of the gospel? I think not. After all, it would be strange for Paul to say, "For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified" (1 Cor 2:2) if the crucifixion was not the central point of the gospel message. Throughout the first couple of chapters of 1 Corinthians, Paul repeatedly talks about the importance and centrality of the cross. In 1:17 he says, "For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power." Clearly, Paul thinks that the cross is central to the gospel here. The cross is also the central theme and high point of the four accounts we have of the gospel. The kingship of Christ is ever present, a foundational reality, but not the gospel's message.

Another issue with the idea of allegiance set against faith as the element of central importance is that the concepts are linked, but in only one direction. It is possible to pledge allegiance to something or someone without believing in them or having faith. The opposite is not true. Allegiance to Christ as king does not require that I truly have complete faith in him any more than it would for any other earthly ruler. I love the United States and pledge allegiance to the flag. I have allegiance to the president of our nation, all while seriously disliking much of what goes on in our country and several of our president's actions. Faith in Christ requires that I recognize him as King and Lord, but goes much deeper. It is not just that I agree to follow him, but truly believe that he knows what is good and right in every circumstance.

Summary

I could go on into details about many of the other interesting ideas that Bates presents in his book, but I think if I were to start down that trail, I would need to write a whole book to answer very many of them. I do not find it necessary, as many other wonderful books have been written on the topic of the gospel and justification. Books that do a far better job of explaining and defending the gospel and justification by faith alone than I ever could. I will simply close with this. During the Reformation, Martin Luther argued for every Christian's right to interpret the Bible for themselves. However, this right was never separated from the responsibility to interpret it correctly. Not every interpretation is valid, and novelty in interpretation must be avoided. We have been given the Scripture as the foundational truth for faith and practice. It is our guide and the place we must go to test everything. C.S. Lewis, in his work Mere Christianity, writes, “For a great many of the ideas about God which are trotted out as novelties today are simply the ones which real theologians have tried centuries ago and rejected.” I am not familiar with this specific brand of novelty having shown up before, but it would not surprise me. We need to be extra careful of those who present themselves as having found the one way that everyone else has missed.

Soli Deo Gloria