Response to TGC re: Matthew Bates, Beyond the Salvation Wars
Original article, “Don’t Buy into a Revisionist Gospel, Review: ‘Beyond the Salvation Wars’ by Matthew Bates,” March 11, 2025, by Harrison Perkins, The Gospel Coalition
A recent article posted on the TGC website by Harrison Perkins (cited above) claims to be a review of Matthew Bates’ recent book, Beyond the Salvation Wars, but only succeeds as a ‘hit piece’ intended to highlight the specific theological camp encouraged in the TGC community. Perkins claims that “Bates’s gospel and his arguments for it have several significant flaws.” Perkins does not list the flaws by number, but I’d like to address five specific criticisms he makes of Bates before providing some concluding thoughts. I’ll pose these as questions to be answered as I do not believe the claims accurately represent Bates’ positions.
For context, I consider my theology to accord with the reformed traditions, though I am non-confessional (to which many will say, then I must not be reformed) and have been theologically trained in the Reformed tradition. My point in this response is not to reject Reformed theology but to address what I believe to be an under-researched, informal, and uncharitable response to the work of Matthew Bates. I should also say upfront that the following critique of Perkins’ review is based solely on my perception of Matthew Bates’ position as articulated in this work and others. Dr. Bates was not involved in the production of the response.
1. Does Bates ‘rely on a strand of revisionist scholarship to claim new insight into the Gospel?’
Related is the question, Does Bates ‘embrace the arguments’ of the revisionist ‘guild as a new standard of orthodoxy?’ Perkins speaks of the New Perspective on Paul (NPP) as revisionism, suggesting that NPP’s aim is to rewrite historic Christian orthodoxy. He further claims Bates builds his arguments on this revisionist ‘guild’ as if NPP has intentionally created a heterodoxical division within Christian scholarship. NPP is, therefore, controversial to many, particularly in Pauline theology. In my estimation, the primary tenets of NPP include:
The re-evaluation of first-century Judaism, claiming it was not a works-based religion as traditionally understood, but a religion of grace.
The belief that the Apostle Paul was not primarily concerned with individual salvation but with the inclusion of Gentiles and God’s election of the community of the saints.
The decentralization (though, not necessarily the rejection) of justification by faith in Pauline studies.
The presumption that Christians have misunderstood Paul’s teachings for centuries, thus necessitating a new perspective.
NPP is associated with scholars like E.P. Sanders, James D.G. Dunn, and N.T. Wright. Bates engages these authors; however, engagement does not necessitate full adoption–as if the accusations made against NPP are in every sense warranted. (I don’t think the good folks at Brazos Press read Bates’ works as a cheap repackaging of revisionist theology.)
For the sake of space, let's only address one of these tenets to see if Bates indeed adopts it. In my experience, the controversy over NPP centers around or eventually rests upon the decentralization of justification by faith. Bates writes:
“As part of the gospel, corporate justification has already been won by King Jesus for himself and whoever happens to be part of his church. The gospel itself does not include personal justification by faith but does include the promise that a person can be justified by faith if that person meets the condition of faith. Personal justification is a conditional benefit of the gospel that comes through union with the king and his body as facilitated by the Spirit, not an already realized actuality within the gospel.” (65)
Though Bates parses the theology differently than most contemporary Evangelical theologians, he clearly affirms personal justification on the condition of faith, though clarifying that the gospel–the message of Christ’s work–focuses on the sovereign directive of King Jesus to rescue his church. He further clarifies that the Spirit facilitates personal justification as one is united to the king (and, I would add, kingdom) on the condition of faith. You could argue Bates decentralizes justification by faith but not to the full rejection of it. Further, if Bates is influenced by NPP scholars, this doesn’t mean he claims new insights into the Gospel through that influence or that NPP is indeed revisionary. Perhaps the better way to address his influence is by asking where NPP may or may not reflect historic Christian orthodoxy in whole or part–though that may pose problems for contemporary theological systems.
2. Does ‘Bates present himself as offering fresh theological structures to explain the gospel?’
There are two parts to Perkins’ issue here. First, What are the fresh theological structures? And second, Are they fresh? Bates describes “the present landscape of gospel confusion among Protestants,” citing “two…typical Protestant errors…” (56).
“The gospel includes the personal receipt of justification by faith.”
“The gospel does not include social and political action.” (Ibid.)
Perkins takes particular issue with the apparent rejection of the first, justification by faith. Note, however, that Bates does not reject justification by faith, as I have addressed in the former criticism. He rejects justification by faith as part of the gospel proper. Therefore, the question is, Does Bates think he’s offering something fresh? Perhaps I am the one reading Bates incorrectly here, but I take Bates to be elucidating what he believes to be the historic orthodox claims as recorded in the Scriptures. Bates wants readers to “hear afresh” (74) what he believes to be historical truth claims obscured in “both classic Protestantism and Catholicism” (73)–here, classic referring to the classical theology tradition as it has been developed in either sect, which in the case of both have developed in relatively recent times, compared to early Christian theology.
3. Does Bates ‘rearticulate’ ‘classic Arminian arguments’ or is he truly reflecting a historic soteriological structure?
I would have thought, with all of the obviously fallacious soteriological ideas circulating in churches, that we were beyond the Calvinist-Arminian debate. Though Perkins does not say this, I sense in the subtext the famous Spurgeon quote, “Calvinism is the Gospel” (Sermon, A Defence of Calvinism). Spurgeon elaborates:
“I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having once believed in Jesus. Such a gospel I abhor.” (Ibid.)
I provide the long quote to say this: I will not speak for Bates, but there isn’t a word in Spurgeon’s definition of Calvinism that cannot be found in the teachings of Arminius (though we all know he deals with election and predestination differently). But, to Perkins’ credit, Arminius’s views are what we call Reformed Arminianism. Classical (or Wesleyan) Arminianism, which Perkins refers to, is a form of free-will theism that denies the sovereignty of God and his preeminence in the dispensing of grace. Bates has a section in Chapter 6 on “The Bondage of the Will” (169ff). To the question, “Does Scripture suggest a genuine bondage of the will—that humankind has a damaged ability to turn to God apart from God’s assistance?” Bates replies emphatically, “Yes” (169). But he further writes, “But there is no evidence that Jesus or the apostles believed that the will remained in total bondage with regard to the individual’s ability to respond to the gospel when proclaimed” (170, author emphasis). I can’t help but hear Jesus’s words here. When his followers asked, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent” (John 6:28–29). I cannot take Bates to be rejecting the bondage of the will simply because he sees a response required. Thus, where Bates’ position may not perfectly reflect a single contemporary soteriological system, his goal is not to rearticulate classical Arminian arguments.
4. Does Bates ‘discard the doctrine of original sin?’ (Further, does the doctrine of original sin as articulated normatively in Reformed theology reflect the historical expression of the doctrine?)
Augustine of Hippo first articulated the doctrine of original sin in the 5th century in response to the teachings of Pelagius, who taught that human nature is essentially good and humans can achieve spiritual salvation through their own efforts. According to the doctrine, humanity is considered guilty because of Adam’s sin in the Garden, not as essentially good as per Pelagius.
In the process of theology, we don’t merely ask What is true? so much as Why must this be true? Whenever a doctrine is articulated in the early Christian communities, we should ask, What’s at stake? And for Augustine, that had little to do with free will and everything to do with the preeminent salvific work of Christ. In this regard, Bates’ perspective on the bondage of the will was already addressed in the previous point, so not much needs to be said here. If the will is bound, regardless of how the source of sin is articulated, what’s at stake is God’s preeminent and sovereign activity in saving sinners. Pelagius’s God was not so, but I think for Bates, he most certainly is. Therefore, to answer the parenthetical question, both Bates’s position and the classical doctrine of original sin reflect Augustine’s intent in explaining human nature. So, I see no issue or orthodoxy on this point that should cause division.
5. Does ‘Bates minimize the discussion of grace’ by suggesting one ‘opts to undergo baptism?’
It’s surprising to me how much of Perkins’ criticism comes down to the location of regeneration in the ordo salutis. Perkins quotes,
“According to Bates, ‘One opts to undergo baptism to be reborn because she or he has seen a more enlightened way and wants forgiveness and a new lifestyle. Regeneration or rebirth is what happens after we have seen enough of the light that we choose to believe, repent, and be baptized while expressing fidelity’ (131, emphasis original).”
Perkins pits Bates “Against Augustine” when Bates seems to accord with Augustine in principle, per the previous point. (I assume Perkins’ accusation is rooted in the question, Does ‘Bates’ gospel amount to us working our way into heaven?’ At this point, I think the answer to this question can go unanswered, lest I become too redundant.) He must believe that opting in is tantamount to denying God’s sovereignty. But again, we must consider Why the doctrine? not just What? My question for Perkins is, Where precisely does Bates minimize the salvific work of Christ (grace)? He makes no real argument for this claim, which makes his article read like a rant as it nears the end, not a reasoned critique. I can only guess that he has redefined sovereignty from its natural meaning to depict God as one who acts alone and despite his creation.
Further, Perkins misrepresents Bates on this point, “He explicitly rejects the idea that ‘God must act alone in giving pre-faith assistance via regeneration’ (169).” In fact, there’s only one word in this quote that Bates perhaps rejects, the word ‘alone,’ which seems clear in the fuller quote:
Numerous passages suggest that humans are bankrupt, depraved, hostile to God, and unable to seek God fully (e.g., John 5:42; 6:44; Rom. 1:21, 28, 32; 3:10–12; 7:18; 8:7). Biblical evidence in favor of the bondage of the will—and there is plenty of it—is what causes many to go beyond what Scripture teaches to argue that God must act alone in giving pre-faith assistance via regeneration. However, this is quite simply not how Scripture describes the matter. (169, author emphasis)
As I read Bates, he affirms the bondage of the will, the necessity for God to act, and the necessity of regeneration. I must ask, then, Is this entire review a Calvinist’s argument against Arminianism? If so, then I must point out the irony, that a book aimed at Christian unity would elicit such a divisive response over a tertiary doctrine.
Concluding Thoughts
Perkins ends his review by asking, “Can Bates’s paradigm for salvation even be considered a gospel at all?” I would like to personally respond to this by reminding my own readers that a gospel is not a paradigm for salvation in the first place. A gospel is a message or story to be heralded to a people or delivered to a king, often regarding victory. The Gospel is the story of Christ’s victory over sin, death, and rebellious cosmic powers with the subsequent ascension and enthronement of Christ on high. In other words, the Gospel is the good news that Jesus is King. What follows is a beautiful array of blessings–regeneration, adoption, justification, sanctification, glorification, theosis, inheritance, eternity, life. Praise God for the forgiveness of sins and the transformation from sinner to saint that we experience! These are fruits of allegiance to King Jesus.
I am not (yet) persuaded by every position of Matthew Bates, and I’m confident he would not agree with every premise in my book on the Gospel. But, like me, he intends his audience not to believe less than the Gospel so that the response to the Gospel heralded would never be less than allegiance to King Jesus. As Paul writes, “if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” (Romans 10:9).
