Have We Really Misunderstood the Gospel for 2000 Years?

A Discussion of Matthew Bates’s Beyond the Salvation Wars: Why Both Protestants and Catholics Must Reimagine How We Are Saved

With: Dr. Tom Schreiner, Dr. Jim Hamilton, & Dr. Steve Wellum

Albert Mohler:

Have we been wrong about the biblical teaching concerning salvation all along? Have we misconstrued the gospel for two millennia? All these issues come up from time to time and, since we are a gospel people, nothing’s more important than our understanding of the gospel. So we’re going to be looking at a contemporary challenge to our understanding of the gospel, and I have asked three professors to join with me: Tom Schreiner, professor of New Testament, Jim Hamilton, professor of Old Testament, and Steve Wellum, professor of theology. I appreciate them joining with me. We’re going to have a lively conversation. Brothers, thanks for joining me.

 

Jim Hamilton:

Glad to be here. Thanks for having us.

 

Albert Mohler:

So let me just put the question out bluntly: Is it plausible that the Christian Church has misconstrued the gospel for two millennia?

 

Steve Wellum:

I would say no. The gospel has been clearly understood for 2000 years and, especially, we want to say that, even in the Patristic era, people were true believers in Christ––believed in his finished work, in it alone by faith alone, grace alone. Sometimes they didn’t clearly say that the same way as in the Reformation, but particularly since the Reformation it’s been clearly delineated––all the great souls of the faith––that is the gospel, and it hasn’t changed.

 

Jim Hamilton:

I think to assert that is really to indict the Holy Spirit as though the Holy Spirit has failed to inspire a sufficient and clear word in the Scriptures, and then, as though the Holy Spirit might fail to lead followers of Jesus, to regenerate their hearts so that they correctly understand the Scriptures, and then to lead them into a correct understanding of the Scriptures. So it really strikes me as an assertion very much opened a challenge on theological grounds.

 

Albert Mohler:

Tom?

 

Tom Schreiner:

And I think for someone to say, “After 2000 years, I understand what the gospel is. I’m proposing a third way”––it’s just historically, theologically, very implausible.

 

Albert Mohler:

Yeah, let’s just say upfront that if the church has lost the gospel, we want to recover it . . .

 

Jim Hamilton:

No doubt.

 

Albert Mohler:

So morally and theologically, with urgency, we would read a challenge like this, not in order merely to dismiss it, but to take it seriously, at least at face value. And we’ve done that, and that’s why we’re going to have this conversation.

I guess the second question is, just in a summary, what is the gospel? Before we turn to looking at this author’s proposal, What is the gospel?

 

Steve Wellum:

Well, when we think of the gospel, we think of the good news. What is the good news? It’s what God has done. So it starts with him. It’s what he has done to redeem us, right? So his eternal plan brought about in the work of his son, all the accomplishment of that work––what Christ has done––and its response to us: that he brings us into relationship with him, that what Christ has done for us, we receive by grace through faith, that we are justified before God. That is the good news––the new life that we receive and all that he accomplishes and ultimately an entire new universe.

 

Albert Mohler:

Yes.

 

Jim Hamilton:

I’ve taught my children that they can summarize the gospel in four words: God, man, Christ, response. And these four words, they map really nicely onto the flow of thought in the book of Romans, where Paul starts with the Creator and explains how everyone is accountable to him. And then he moves into how all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God––and so this is kind of tracking with the Romans road. And then Paul moves to the provision that God has made in Christ and the good news that he has conquered sin, overcome it, and triumphed over death by his resurrection paid for our penalties through his death on the cross. And then our necessary response to that is to repent and believe in this Messiah as our Lord and Savior and in the message of what he’s done for us.

 

Albert Mohler:

Yeah. Tom?

 

Tom Schreiner:

Yeah, if we go back to Isaiah where we have the good news being proclaimed to Israel, Israel is in exile. Why? What does Isaiah tell us again and again? They’re in exile because of their sins. What is the answer to that? It’s the suffering Servant, who is Jesus Christ himself. And how do you avail yourself of the work of that Servant? Through repentance and belief. That is the gospel Paul preaches. Jesus begins his ministry by saying, “Repent and believe the good news.” He is the one who has come as the Son of Man, the Servant of the Lord, to die for the sins of his people and redeem them as they put their faith and trust in him.

 

Albert Mohler:

And then there is an order of salvation revealed in Scripture. And quite honestly, it’s the order of salvation the Reformers particularly clarified in theological controversy. And we don’t believe they invented it. We believe they, in one sense, rediscovered it in the Scriptures, and then reaffirmed it. And it is a simple-to-understand structure, right?

 

Jim Hamilton:

Absolutely, absolutely. And I think that this order of salvation is laid out for us nicely in Romans 8 when Paul speaks about those whom God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed, and those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, those whom he justified he also glorified. And, of course, there are some necessary components in there. Those who are called must respond in repentance and faith. And I think that naturally leads to the idea that there is a power of God to call––just like he can call creation into existence, he can speak light into our hearts and open blind eyes and give life to dead people so that they see and believe in Christ.

 

Albert Mohler:

Steve, in order to describe this gospel rightly, we have used and do use language such as “imputation,” of “substitution,” even “blood atonement.” Are those negotiable terms or are those central to the gospel itself?

 

Steve Wellum:

Well, I would say they’re central to the gospel because behind them––Why do we need imputation? Why do we need blood? Atonement is because of who God is. He is holy and just. He is our Creator and Lord. In Adam we have fallen. We have sinned. We stand under his righteous judgment. We need a right standing before God. We cannot come into his presence apart from the forgiveness of our sins. Justification––a perfect righteousness––that’s imputation. We need a substitution. We need Christ to pay for our sin, to stand in our behalf. Without that we have no good news. We have no relationship with God. We have no overcoming of sin.

 

Albert Mohler:

Death––we’re still dead in our sins.

 

Steve Wellum:

Dead in our sins. To minimize any of those truths of substitution, imputation, justification, we have no gospel.

 

Albert Mohler:

Tom, so what is the order of salvation revealed in the Scriptures? The ordo salutis. How is it that salvation––God’s saving work––is appropriated by a sinner? How does that happen according to the New Testament?

 

Tom Schreiner:

Well, in terms of the order, I would say––picking up on what Jim has said––we have election. God elects us before the foundation of the world. I think it’s very clear in Ephesians 1, Romans 9, that this election is unconditional. That election Creates faith, it grants us faith. So we appropriate, we do believe we appropriate the salvation by faith as we believe, but we think the order of salvation is such that God grants us that faith. Even the texts that Jim mentioned––those who are called are justified. That can’t mean those who are invited to be saved are justified, because we know Romans 5:1––you’re justified by faith. So the calling has to create faith, though all those were called or justified, not some. So the calling is an effectual call. It’s a calling that creates faith.

 

Albert Mohler:

So let me ask you all three of you, is it plausible? Let’s just ask this honestly. Is it plausible that the Christian church has misconstrued the gospel for 2000 or so years? Is it plausible that that’s so?

 

Steve Wellum:

It’s not plausible. I mean if they’ve misconstrued the gospel, we have really no true saving faith, no relationship with God. I mean the gospel is . . .

 

Albert Mohler:

And haven’t had for 2000 years.

 

Steve Wellum:

And haven’t had for 2000 years. And Christians throughout the ages are already back with our credal confession and confessing rightly who God is, confessing rightly who the Savior is, rightly confessing his work, how we then receive salvation, forgiveness of sins. Think of all the way back to the Apostles’ Creed, the forgiveness of sins that involves justification and our right standing before God. There have been through the history of the church muddying with obviously the Roman Catholic debate and Protestant debate. Yet even in all of that, there’s clarity that’s come in the Reformation with justification, salvation by grace through faith, in all of these areas.

 

Jim Hamilton:

I think to suggest that for 2000 years we’ve been not quite right, that really manifests chronological snobbery. It really assumes that ancient people were stupid and that we have finally come along and we’ve brought to the world . . .

 

 

Albert Mohler:

Not mention our grandparents.

 

Jim Hamilton:

Oh absolutely. That’s right. That’s right.

 

Tom Schreiner:

And it would say something ultimately about God himself, that God has disclosed a gospel that we haven’t understood for 2000 years. That is so implausible and unlikely. God’s revelation is a revelation that communicates, that’s been effective.

 

Albert Mohler:

Right. In the course of the last century or so––and in a particular trajectory of English speaking theology, English speaking biblical studies––there’s been the rise of an attempt to offer an alternative reading of historic texts. There’s been even an effort to try to say, look, you look at the Protestant Reformation, you look at the Catholic Church and the Council of Trent, this is all base—at least in part—on either a misunderstanding or, on both sides, a misconstrual of the issues. And I don’t think it’s an accident that this has arisen largely in English speaking theology, because it kind of fits a trajectory here.

But now we arrive at a recent book published that’s arrived on the scene. The author is Matthew W. Bates, who’s now at Northern Baptist Theological Seminary. The title is: Beyond the Salvation Wars: Why both Protestants and Catholics Must Reimagine How We Are Saved. Now, I want to say right up front, I find that implausible, and I say that as a theologian, someone committed to history and historical theologies. It’s implausible to me that Protestants and Catholics are having a false argument, on a false misapprehension, or a false understanding of the gospel.

But this has been going on for some time. We have N.T. Wright and a number of others who have been about this. The achievement of this book, I think, is that it is a short summary which kind of distills all of this. And, in that sense, I thought it would be worthy of this kind of conversation. So it’s not just about this book, but this book does arrive as kind of the distillation. And I think Professor Bates presents it as the distillation of this new way of reading the Scriptures. So to what extent is this new or is it old? Where are the roots of this found?

 

Jim Hamilton:

One of the things that Bates affirms in this book is the so-called New Perspective on Paul

 

Albert Mohler:

Right.

 

Jim Hamilton:

Which I think fundamentally grew out of a rereading of ancient Jewish texts. And then the argument that those ancient Jewish texts properly understood do not lead to the conclusion that those Jews were actually legalistic. And so Bates, he follows in the wake of N. T. Wright, but E. P. Sanders, he’s sort of the leading figure of this. And Sanders acknowledged that the Apostle Paul thought that his contemporaries were legalists. And he said, this is where Paul fundamentally misunderstood his contemporaries, which itself is just so extremely implausible that this modern 20th century liberal New Testament scholar has a better understanding of the people with whom Paul was in dialogue than Paul himself did.

 

Tom Schreiner:

Yes, I think it’s, we’ve seen N. T. Wright talk about these things, Scott McKnight. I mean it’s interesting if we look at where it’s coming from, I think it’s coming more from the Main Line churches that are trying to, as he says, reimagine the Gospels. So I don’t think it’s coming from the evangelical gospel churches, but there is a danger that it would influence us and cause us to think, “Oh, has everything we said been wrong?” And that’s a concern.

 

Steve Wellum:

Yeah, I mean you mentioned a New Perspective. I think behind that are other historical issues. When I read Tom Wright, when I read Matthew Bates, we have a whole rethinking of the doctrine of God. We have a whole redefinition of divine justice. We have a definition redefinition of the atoning work of Christ, which are trends that you see prior to the Reformation, but post-Reformation era where you had the Socinians arise and redefine all of these issues. You had the Arminian debates where quickly they left Arminius and went to governmental theories of the cross. They redefined these matters of penal substitution. That’s what’s really going on in this book so that there’s no imputation, there’s no need for active obedience, there’s no need for penal substitution. Well, those are old debates that have gone on and they are post-Reformation debates. So it’s tapping into New Perspective––I’ve been convinced for a while that the New Perspective behind that has been really a re-tinkering with the doctrine of God.

 

Albert Mohler:

Yeah. I don’t think it’s an accident, and I say this with respect, but I don’t think it’s an accident that this comes out of at least partly an Anglican tradition, because Anglicanism in its mature form is really quite open to a third way of understanding just about anything, that via media, middle way. So I even think in the title of the book, it’s a way you have Protestants, you have Catholics––there’s got to be some middle way and they must both be wrong to some extent. Maybe to some extent they’re right. And I think that’s part of the cleverness of this book, and it is very interesting. I think it’s compellingly written. This is actually the most, I think, succinct and forceful form of this argument I have confronted. It is a lot more accessible than N. T. Wright and the others. I think for that reason it may be all the more important. That’s why we’re having this discussion. I think it also in some ways kind of creates a new baseline for the discussion of the alternatives and understanding Scripture, gospel, salvation, and whether the church has misconstrued the gospel for all of this time. At one point in his book he talks about gospel allegiance as his model. He puts it in different ways, but it’s gospel allegiance––very similar to, I think, what even 20 plus years ago N. T. Wright was talking about. And it sounds good. I mean we don’t want non-allegiance to the gospel, but that is set as an alternative to, or even a necessary corrective of, the historic Protestant understanding of the gospel itself.

 

Tom Schreiner:

So yeah, to say “salvation by allegiance alone” instead of “by faith alone,” it’s subtle, but it’s now putting the emphasis on what we do as human beings. Faith is fundamentally receptive––receiving what God has done for us in Jesus Christ. And now the word “allegiance” is emphasizing our response, our work. He does use the word––our works are foundational, even a basis of our justification, which I think speaks to what Steve was saying is rejection of imputation. So I think this is a whole reception of the gospel.

 

Albert Mohler:

In some ways that’s not even Catholic. In other words, Protestant hearing that is going to say, well that’s more Catholic. It is more Catholic. It’s not even exactly Catholic. And so I think it is interesting that Matthew Bates in this book is trying to say, “No, there’s a third way, a pox on both these houses.” And he says it, a bit friendlier than that. But he is not at all reluctant to say Protestantism is just the gospel off the rails and Catholicism, for instance, when he deals with something like penance, he’s very clear about the fact that he rejects that, sees that as a huge problem in the Catholic construal of the gospel.

But I think we have to go back and say foundational to this is reading the Scripture. So I want us to talk about that. I would really appreciate the three of you telling me how do we understand his interpretation of Scripture, and what is the corrective to this? If he’s right, he’s right. If he’s not right, we need to know why he’s not.

 

Jim Hamilton:

Yes. So I think that one of the things that characterizes Bates’s work, both in this book and in Salvation by Allegiance Alone and in his work in books like The Birth of the Trinity, it’s a disregard for the Old Testament and the meaning of the Old Testament in context. If you look at what he says about the gospel in this book, the title of one of the articles done in response to this really resonates. It’s a faith unlike that of Abraham. There’s no reference to Genesis 15:6 that I could find in this book or any concern with Paul’s argument that Abraham believed and it was reckoned to him for righteousness, as is asserted in Genesis 15:6. And so I would argue that, rightly understood, that’s what Moses is teaching, and what we want to do is we want to understand the New Testament in such a way that it resonates with the Old Testament. And we see that as Paul and Peter and John and the others in the New Testament are arguing, this is what the Old Testament was about all along. But for Bates, he doesn’t even want to use the terminology that’s found in the New Testament. He wants to change all the pistis terminology from faith and believe and trust and this kind of language to something new that he’s bringing in allegiance. And Genesis 15:6 is certainly not saying Abraham showed allegiance and it was reckoned to him for righteousness. In fact, you wouldn’t need it to be reckoned.

 

Tom Schreiner:

And just to add to that point, if you’re going to say faith, pistis, is allegiance, what do you do with the verb, pisteuo, believe?

 

Jim Hamilton:

Yeah, exactly.

 

Tom Schreiner:

Which he doesn’t deal much with the verb. So I think that’s a problem. Does the verb mean––I don’t know. How do you put the allegiance into a verb? So I don’t think it works.

 

Steve Wellum:

There’s all the use of Scripture, his exegesis and so on. Again, speaking more in terms of systematic theology, foundationally, I think he works with the assumption, which is totally unbiblical, that God does not require from us perfect obedience, that our standing before God is not, need to have that obedience, that righteousness, that proper justification, that God, in some sense, I think, and I don’t know what his doctrine of God is, but he grades on the curve, so that there is no demand for an atonement that fully pays for sin. This is why, this isn’t even Catholic or Protestant. I mean the reason the Catholic version, you still have to have a right standing before God. That may come through purgatory and something down the road, but he shed himself of all that.

So I want to ask, what is your view of God? Is he holy? Is he just, does he overlook sin? Because he doesn’t have any atonement that fully deals with sin. He doesn’t have a righteous standing that we need to have before God. Our faith now, our works, our allegiance, is the basis for our final justification, but our works are never enough. So he talks about spirit empowered works––fine––but there’s no ground to our justification. Our justification is not grounded in the work of Christ that actually accomplishes a full atonement for us.

 

Albert Mohler:

So the question I think is what is the righteousness that saves? What righteousness is acceptable to God? And I cannot come up with any construct in which it is anything other than God’s own righteousness, which is imputed to us by faith. And so Steve, I appreciate what you said. In other words, how much is enough? One of the practical questions that came to me in reading this, and I look for it, maybe I missed it, I try to be a careful reader, but I may have missed it, but how does the believer have any assurance in this system?

 

Jim Hamilton:

Well, I think he doesn’t want assurance. I think he throws it out, and he argues against once saved always saved.

 

Tom Schreiner:

Right. You can lose your salvation.

 

Albert Mohler:

Right, right. No, I get that. But at least you would think, pastorally, there has to be some concern . . .

 

Tom Schreiner:

I guess as long as you’re performing sufficiently.

 

Jim Hamilton:

I think he’s concerned that having assurance will actually lead to an easy-believism that he’s opposing with this salvation by allegiance alone.

 

Albert Mohler:

And we don’t affirm easy-believism.

 

Jim Hamilton:

Right, absolutely not.

 

Albert Mohler:

And I think the comprehensiveness of Protestant theology and the understanding of the gospel here is never more necessary, I think, when looking at this kind of proposal. And that’s why I just say upfront, I’m a conservative in disposition as well as doctrine. And that means, I think, I hope, a God-honoring conservatism, which is to say, I find it implausible that the church has lost the gospel for 2000 years. I find it implausible that it’s going to show up in a paperback book, published in an evangelical context in the 21st century. That doesn’t mean I’m not interested in what he has to say here, but I can’t get on his platform from the first point. I don’t believe that the gospel has been lost for 2000 years, to be recovered under a new term of allegiance.

 

Jim Hamilton:

Amen.

 

Steve Wellum:

Well, when you think of assurance, I mean I’m reading this, and because I work with the Bible’s view of God, I’m saying to myself, “Alright, when am I allegiant enough?” When I stand before God, who’s holy and just.

 

Albert Mohler:

Absolutely.

 

Steve Wellum:

“Did I show enough allegiance? Did I obey enough? Did I obey in my life?” and so on. And it seems to me he’s not concerned with that question. He’s not bothered by, “How do I stand before a holy God?” So when you talk about reading Scripture, I don’t think he even understands at the heart of the main question of the Bible. The main question of the Bible, post-Fall, is “How do I stand right before a holy God?”

I don’t think that bothers him a whole lot.

 

Jim Hamilton:

I’d like to pull on that thread by talking about Noah. In Genesis 6:8, we’re told that Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord, and then in 6:9 we’re told that Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation. And I think that so many biblical scholars, they don’t start from the assumption that Moses is a coherent thinker. And so, for many of them, as they read this narrative, you’ll find them saying things like, “Well, evidently, the way that Abraham was justified was of no concern to Moses,” or they won’t even attribute it to Moses when we’re reading Genesis 6, because evidently Noah was righteous apart from faith. But in the narrative flow, and in the inner coherence of the narrative, Noah is about to be told that there’s going to be this flood and that he is to build this ark. And what does he do? He believes what he’s been told. I mean, I granted the text doesn’t say, “Noah believed the Lord,” but he builds the arc and the undertaking was such that it probably required him leaving off everything else he was doing, devoting all his time, all his resources to the building of this boat and really investing everything that he had, everything that he was, in responding in faith to the word that a flood was coming. And then if we grant that the author of Genesis is a coherent thinker, when we get to Genesis 15:6, it’s natural for us to conclude, “oh, this is what happened with Noah.” This is how Noah got to be counted righteous. And Noah found favor, and then he was regarded as righteous because he responded in faith as it was also with Abraham.

 

Tom Schreiner:

And, of course, that’s how Hebrews reads the story, which is a canonical, inspired reflection on the story that Noah did these things by faith. Hebrews 11, it’s very clear.

I would want to add he defines justification. (So we have to look at what does Scripture say.) He defines justification as renovative, as infused righteousness, not declarative righteousness. So in some of these things we have to look at the text. What is the text saying? And I think he’s just mistaken on what justification actually is textually.

 

Albert Mohler:

Well, he knows that his rendering of justification is different than either the Catholic or the Protestant rendering of justification.

 

Tom Schreiner:

Well of course, I mean Catholics agree that it’s renovated but in a different way than he does.

 

Steve Wellum:

Yeah. He’s arguing for incorporation, isn’t he? So it’s not infused or imputed, which raises the issue, as I’m listening to this, I’m incorporated into this group.

 

Albert Mohler:

Well, maybe yes, maybe not. That also confuses me because everything’s corporate. Who is God’s redeemed people?

 

Jim Hamilton:

It’s the people that show allegiance.

 

Albert Mohler:
When and where?

 

Jim Hamilton:
Well, this kind of goes back to what Steve was saying. Is God holy? Is God righteous? Bates, he’ll say, “Well, the Protestants have it wrong in these ways, but they’re really kind of okay. And the Catholics have it wrong in these ways, but we can sort of work them in.” And it’s kind of like what Steve said about God grading on a curve. Evidently for Bates, he’s willing to grade on a curve.

 

Albert Mohler:

Tom started out, and I appreciate this with the doctrine of election, the clear scriptural presentation of God’s electing purpose. And so we actually believe that the identity of the church is in the wisdom and purpose of God before time began. And thus we can speak of the church in a visible reality in our lifetimes in gathered congregations, but ultimately we’re talking about the elect of God. And that’s a theme in both the Old and the New Testaments. And yet I asked the question again, where is the church? In other words, because Steve, you made this point, are people moving in and out of this orbit all the time?

 

Steve Wellum:

Well, he says yes. He says, but I mean the church seems to be . . .

 

Albert Mohler:

Greater and lesser allegiance. How much is enough allegiance?

 

Steve Wellum:

And his concept of the church seems to be God has elected. So his view of election is a corporate election. It’s not individuals. So he’s elected the church. He doesn’t talk much in terms of Old Testament Israel.

 

Albert Mohler:

So let’s just go with that for a minute. We don’t believe that. We disagree. But let’s just for the sake of argument, go with that for a moment. So is it a situation and even in corporate election where the individual moves in and out, in and out, in and out, in and out, potentially?

 

Tom Schreiner:

Potentially.

 

Albert Mohler:

I don’t understand what allegiance means in this context.

 

Tom Schreiner:

Potentially, because you can lose it and conceivably, hypothetically, God chooses an entity, the church. If no one responds, there’s no one in the entity. He tries to fend off that objection.

 

Albert Mohler:
If no one demonstrates allegiance.

 

Tom Schreiner:

Right, if no one demonstrates allegiance, then God has chosen something with nothing in it. I think his whole conception of setting off the group from the individual is, ultimately, I think he speaks to this, but I think it’s incoherent. It really doesn’t make sense. If God has not chosen the individuals, how has he chosen a corporate group? And furthermore . . .

 

Albert Mohler:

We can only do this backwards. You can only do this backwards and say, I think I can see a coherent group and thus I can conform my understanding of election to that. But it doesn’t work the other way because, as you say, hypothetically, there could be no one in this group whatsoever.

 

Tom Schreiner:

Exactly. And I also want to say, he says, “Well, exegetically, it’s not there in the text.” Well, look at Romans 9. Romans 9 does use singulars, right? It doesn’t just use plurals. John 6, right? Those who are given by the Father to the Son, I will raise him on the last day. There are singulars in the text. Now I think he’s wrong, separating the corporate from the individual. But if you look at the text, there are singulars. We don’t just find corporate language.

 

Jim Hamilton:

Right. Years ago you wrote a review article of Brian Abasciano’s book, and you talked about how, in his view, essentially God has elected an empty set. No one is in it, and Bates cites Abasciano. He doesn’t mention that it was reviewed by Thomas R. Schreiner. It was a very convincing review.

 

Steve Wellum:

Well, I mean this is where Bates is not giving us anything new. He’s just tapping into theology that he’s not identifying as such. So this corporate sense . . .

 

Albert Mohler:

That’s why I mentioned that I think he summarized it well. The reason we’re discussing this is that it’s updated and summarized well.

 

Steve Wellum:

But the corporate sense, I’m not sure, I mean, Tom, you’ve worked on that, how far that goes back. But I mean that’s very, my understanding, very Arminian view, right? So it’s a way of avoiding––which he does not want––that God has chosen in election individuals because that then would ultimately bring a certain order of salvation that would then bring issues that would follow in terms of justification and so on, regeneration, proceeding faith. And he’s really operating with either––I could never figure out whether it’s a semi-Pelagian view of human sin or Arminian view, because he’s got some notion of prevenient grace here. But that’s all tied to the coming of Christ and the preaching of the gospel. I don’t know what ever happens to Old Testament saints in that. So he’s got this notion that we respond, then there’s regeneration. These are old debates that just sort of lays out here, and it’s an entire, but then his gospel eventually has no––in contrast to Arminian––has no atoning work of Christ that actually satisfies the full justice and holiness of God. There is nothing of that in him.

 

Albert Mohler:

Yeah, I guess that’s a crucial question. I can hear J. I. Packer coming alongside and saying, “Oh, here’s the question: For whom did Christ die?” What was actually accomplished in the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ? Is there a defined people? And you say, Tom, that’s, conceivably, hypothetically, a set of none.

Tom Schreiner:
Absolutely.

 

Steve Wellum:

Well, when you look at his, I worked hard to try to figure out what is his view of the atonement. The only thing I can come up with, because of all of his kingly emphasis––so usually, all the way back to the early church, particularly since the reformation, Christ is prophet, priest and king, and particularly the role of priest, priest-king. That seems to fall by the wayside, so king comes. All I can see is with the dawning of the kingdom in Christ is it’s a kind of Christus Victor. So Christ now defeats the powers. He’s now the king. And there’s a kind of non-debt atonement he talks about. So the captives are liberated, the set of people that doesn’t involve anybody, they’re sort of set free. It’s a kind of old sort of governmental Christus Victor. And then we put ourselves in this. I mean, yeah, there is no gospel here.

 

Albert Mohler:

If you can put yourself in, you can take yourself out.

 

Steve Wellum:

You take yourself out. So I don’t know what is, the atoning work of Christ is in some sense minimal. It’s necessary to sort of defeat the powers, to have some kind of justice upheld, but not full payment of sin. It’s not payment of individual sin and then resurrection, ascension, and then our allegiance to Christ in this set of people, which then gives us what he calls justification. But that’s not justification before God, right?

 

Tom Schreiner:

Yeah. And he’ll say the kingdom is good news, and he responds to this, but I don’t understand what it means that the kingdom is good news if you don’t respond to it. He says on page 67, “It’s a power releasing event that moves unjust individuals into a righteous community.” What does he mean? It moves them. Because elsewhere he says over and over, it’s up to the individual decision and the gospel itself doesn’t transform and change people. But now he says it moves you into. So I don’t think it really ends up making a lot of sense, but I go back to what John Piper said. I think John is absolutely right. It is not good news that Jesus is king, if you’re alienated from him. That is not good news. That is bad news because you’re going to be judged. So I think that’s a huge problem here.

 

Albert Mohler:

I am a little puzzled by the way the book begins. He cites some New Testament scholars. He admires in, I guess, in whose intellectual company he wants to keep himself. But then it’s also interesting that he goes after some very interesting people: John MacArthur, John Piper, my own pastor, Greg Gilbert. Greg wrote a very influential book just asking the question, What is the Gospel? And he answers it. So it’s very interesting. And of course they’ve been in some exchange back and forth too, but it’s very interesting, very close to the section you read. On page 65, he says that “Piper and Gilbert’s position inadvertently taints the gospel with our culture’s narcissistic individualism. The gospel can’t count as good news unless I personally get something out of it.” That’s one of the most puzzling sentences I’ve ever read in theological literature.

 

Tom Schreiner:

I mean to call these people, even inadvertently, narcissistic.

 

Albert Mohler:

Well, what about the gospel writers? Are they narcissistic?

 

Jim Hamilton:

I think what he’s failing to understand is, it’s interesting in the Old Testament at one point when the Philistines have triumphed over the Israelites, they go and they proclaim the good news in the house of their gods, the gospel that their God has defeated the God of Israel. In that case, the gospel, the gospel of the Philistines is bad news for the Israelites. It means their God is triumphed. And it’s like he wants to deny that fundamental reality. That’s all these guys are saying. They’re saying the gospel is that Christ is triumphed and his people are delivered. And if you’re not part of his people, that’s not good news for you. Just like the Philistine good news was not good news for the Israelites. I don’t understand why he’s objecting to this.

 

Tom Schreiner:

And he says earlier on that same page, Dr. Mohler, that you cited, page 65, where that Gilbert and Piper say that your personal response is required. It doesn’t count as fully good news in their view. What God has accomplished in establishing a saved community. But in his view, what has God established apart from the responsive individuals?

 

Albert Mohler:

Well, that gets back to set theory, right? So I can’t get away from it. So where is the church? It seems to be a very porous entity, and allegiance is such an ambiguous term, and I know he loves it because, and he’s not alone. Like I say, there are others who follow the same kind of thing. Certainly we owe allegiance to Christ, to the King, but I cannot prove anything by my allegiance. I certainly can’t earn my salvation by that allegiance. And when you look at, I mean anyone who’s been a part of the church of the Lord Jesus Christ, a part of a local congregation, if it’s up to us every week to keep ourselves in allegiance––I’ll just remind us of the old statement: if you can lose your salvation, you will.

 

Jim Hamilton:

And pastorally, this is devastating because what is a pastor supposed to say to his congregation? Presumably he’s trying to encourage those people to read the Bible, and they keep reading the Bible and they keep coming back saying, “I’m not seeing this word allegiance anywhere in the Bible. Where all am I supposed to overwrite the word allegiance?” And this comes back, a question I kept asking as I read this book is, who does Bates lead? Does he lead anyone? Does he pastor anyone? Does he represent anyone? And I think that the fundamental impracticality of this proposal is revealed when you start asking these pastoral questions.

 

Tom Schreiner:

Of course, what he wants to argue is the word pistis means allegiance. But I think there we can say that is an unconvincing construal of the word. And of course we don’t have time to get into this in detail, but I’d go back again to the relationship between the word pistis, faith, and believing. Paul toggles between those two.

 

Jim Hamilton:

The verb form pisteuo.

 

Tom Schreiner:

Meaning “I believe.” So, yeah, I think when it gets down to the details, his proposal fails as well. It fails in terms of a right reading of Scripture.

 

Steve Wellum:

Well, he doesn’t have, he’ll have Christ as king bringing the kingdom, bringing the new creation. I mean whatever that means to him. There’s no priestly act. There’s no dealing with the problem of sin, which is at the heart of the entire Bible from Genesis 3 on. And Christ doesn’t seem to be, because of allegiance, a proper object of faith, so that we look to him because of what he has done. He is my savior, my Lord. He did a work that I can’t do.

 

Albert Mohler:

But that’s substitution.

 

Steve Wellum:

That’s substitution. And so he has substitution in there in some Christus Victor sense, but it’s not as . . .

 

Albert Mohler:

It’s not objective.

 

Steve Wellum:

. . . Christ has paid for my sin. I need him as my redeemer, and yes, as a result of faith in him, I love him, obey him, serve him. But his allegiance is to Christ in his kingship and basically doing good works that will justify us and keep us in this set. It’s not what Christ has done in him alone, right? I mean, there’s no sola Christus. There’s no Christ alone, faith alone, grace alone. I mean these things are shed. So it’s really a kind of works-salvation.

 

Albert Mohler:

I don’t think it’s kind of. He says justification is not properly a part of the gospel and works are.

 

Tom Schreiner:

And works are a basis. They’re foundational.

 

Steve Wellum:

Well, that’s why I go back. I don’t think he has a concept of God that requires our perfect obedience to his commands and loving him with all of our heart, soul, mind and strength. I don’t think that matters to him, which is a real concern. There’s no need for a penal substitution. There’s no need for righteousness. There’s no need for my right standing before God, which is a horrible thought when I stand before God that I have no right standing. It’s just my works.

 

Albert Mohler:

Can I put this another way? I would say that pastorally, the greatest urgency with which questions come to me would be, How do I know that I’m saved? And so I find most helpful, the Scriptural promises, but I also find very pastorally helpful, and that includes this with students and others, just those who contact me, the Protestant syllogism. They’re the Puritan syllogism more properly. And the salvation comes to those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and repent of their sins. I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and repent of my sins. Therefore, I am a Christian. I am among the redeemed. God has forgiven me. I am in Christ. And the objective reality is based upon the objective work of God in Christ for our salvation. It is appropriated, but we can’t keep ourselves appropriated only Christ can, and it’s not about our works. I think the New Testament is just so clear about that. The sequence, I think I was rightly taught, the one who is saved by grace is the one who is to follow Christ in obedience. But how in the world can we be obedient enough to be saved?

 

Tom Schreiner:

Which is why I think the traditional reading––works are a fruit, works are an evidence, but they can’t be construed as a basis. Even after James says, we’re justified by works––by which I think he means as evidence––what does he say in James 3:2? We all stumble in many ways, which “stumble” there means sin. So James can’t mean our obedience is sufficient to be the basis of our salvation, which fits with everything you’ve been saying, Steve.

No imputation, no substitution.

 

Steve Wellum:

Bates picks up ideas that, you say, okay, we want allegiance. We want to obey, to obey Christ. We want to be part of his people.

 

Jim Hamilton:

We want to reject easy-believism.

 

Steve Wellum:

Yeah, and a lot of his description of classical Protestantism, when he, it’s just an individual faith thing. I mean, it’s like, okay, these are already distortions of what . . .

 

Tom Schreiner:

He defines faith as mental assent.

 

Steve Wellum:

No one defines that as historically Protestant. It’s always fiducia, trust, ascent, belief, all of those things round out. So he’s always caricaturing things. He wants obedience, he wants allegiance, he wants these things, but there’s no ground for it. So he’s made our works the ground, the basis, the foundation without making Christ’s work the ground, right? And there’s no priest-king here. There’s no . . .

 

Albert Mohler:

At least as I read his proposal, there’s an enabling grace, so to speak. I’m just using that term of my own invention here, so that it is certainly not all a human work. But on the other hand, this allegiance as a central category, that’s something that requires of the human being. I mean, just if I try to follow his argument, that requires of the human being infinitely more than I think the human being can produce.

 

Tom Schreiner:

It’s ultimately up to you, right? Even the enablement. So you have Philippians 1:6: “He who began a good work in you will complete it until the day of Christ Jesus.” Well, he must mean by that, he, you began a good work in you will complete it, if you obey sufficiently, right? If you agree to the day of Christ Jesus. But it’s no longer a promise, it’s a condition. So he turns promises in conditions.

 

Jim Hamilton:

A moment ago you were asking, how do I know I’m saved? And you pointed out that he doesn’t deal with the verbal forms, so I suspect he would say about Romans 10:9 and 10, that’s not the gospel. But listen to this verse, these two verses: If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and I mean believe is what it says, what are we supposed to slot in there? Show allegiance in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved, for with the heart one shows allegiance? No, one believes and is justified. And with the mouth one confesses and is saved.

 

Albert Mohler:

Even a text as simple and as common as John 3:16. I don’t think you can possibly turn that into show allegiance.

 

Steve Wellum:

Well, much of his argument on the king, I mean he is divorced from all the biblical categories and structures. Particularly, it’s divorced from the covenantal. So he’ll mention, he doesn’t really mention Adam, he doesn’t mention what’s going on there with the entrance of sin and death into the world. I don’t know what his view of sin is. I don’t know what his view of original sin is, if there’s even a problem there. He talks about our being sinful, but obviously we have the ability to respond.

 

Jim Hamilton:

Now, when you say you don’t know what his view is, he articulates in here, what you’re saying is you’re not satisfied because he’s not accounting for textual data, right?

 

Steve Wellum:

Well, he’s got a very weak view of sin.

 

Jim Hamilton:

Yeah. He’s leaving passages out that he’s not, he’s not addressing through what he says.

 

Steve Wellum:

We’re not dead in our sins. We can respond. There’s no need for regeneration first, right? I mean, that’s a whole view of human nature.

 

Albert Mohler:

Does he give us a proposed ordo salutis?

 

Tom Schreiner:

I don’t think so.

 

Jim Hamilton:

Well, he rejects, he rejects the existing one.

 

Albert Mohler:

I’ll start there, but I’m saying, does he offer an order of salvation?

 

Jim Hamilton:

Well, he claims that both regeneration and justification are false starts. Of course, that’s one of his chapters. And I think in the process of rejecting what would be our view, he offers an alternative. But it really, like we’re saying, it comes down to you have to show allegiance to put yourself into the empty set that God has chosen.

 

Steve Wellum:

Well, if you were to pick up his ordo, there is no eternal individual election. So it’s just this set.

 

Albert Mohler:

Does God even know?

 

Jim Hamilton:

Only on the basis of foresee faith.

 

Albert Mohler:

Yeah, but does God exhaustively foresee?

 

Jim Hamilton:

He says at one point that the open theists, they went down a rabbit, the wrong trail. So he rejects open theism.

 

Steve Wellum:

But it’s an empty, empty set. So the ordo actually, Christ is given. So that’s his gospel. He comes as king, and then it’s we respond. So it would be faith tied to allegiance, which brings about regeneration, which brings about incorporation. I mean, that’s his ordo.

 

Jim Hamilton:

And it’s Christ who’s elected. And then you’re brought into Christ the elect one, I think. Isn’t that correct? What he argues?

 

Tom Schreiner:

Yeah, that sounds rather Barthian.

 

Jim Hamilton:

Yeah, I thought so too, as I read.

 

Steve Wellum:

Well, yeah, he is picking up on that.

 

Albert Mohler:

Well, and that also points back to the basic, I think, thesis and purpose of the book and of his system. It’s a third way, and that’s explicit in the title. It’s not Protestant, it’s not Catholic. I think by the end of the book, I was convinced it was more Protestant than Catholic, but it’s neither Protestant nor Catholic, a pox on both houses, that both have misread the gospel, misconstrued the Scripture, and this third way is the right way. And by the way, imports a term which is not biblical in order to describe this supposedly more biblical third way. And that’s not just a problem with the word allegiance as something that doesn’t have the direct bearing linguistically here. It’s also that it’s a category that just falls short of, I think, every biblical category.

 

Jim Hamilton:

I think there’s probably a connection between N. T. Wright defining God’s righteousness as covenant faithfulness and Matthew Bates wanting to say it’s not faith, it’s allegiance. I suspect that there’s some theological connection between allegiance and covenant faithfulness.

 

Steve Wellum:

Yeah, he does want to critique, right, a bit on the righteousness of God being covenant faithfulness because he wants to incorporate us into the response in terms of our allegiant response type of thing. But it’s very similar. He’s redefined justice, justification. A lot of similarities there to N. T. Wright. In the end, there’s just, when you think of Christology, I am trying to think of what he’s, Christ has come as king, he’s going to create a new world. He’s making a better action. Even now there’s social action he wants to bring as part of the gospel, whatever that means for him. And we then join in with Jesus. But there is the loss of sin, the loss of atonement, the loss of justification before God. All of that’s gone, which is at the heart of the Old Covenant Levitical system, the promise of the New Covenant, the forgiveness of sins, Romans, you think of Romans 3:21-26, God justified Abraham, justified David, justified Old Testament saints. Yet under those old covenant systems, they did not pay for sin. They pointed forward. Christ now comes as the propitiation, as the one who allows God to be both just and justifier. All of that is gone here because there is no finality of Christ and his priestly work.

 

Albert Mohler:

The other pastoral, theological, biblical issue strikes me having to do with assurance because there’s really no doctrine of assurance here. You have no idea whether you’re sufficiently allegiant or not. And by the way, my self-convicting thoughts would tell me I’m never allegiant enough. And I don’t know how you could, I mean, to me, even thinking you’re allegiant enough would be a sin. It’s the opposite of the Puritan syllogism. Now, you’re in the opposite way. I am not totally allegiant, therefore, I am not a Christian, and I’m not even sure I know what being totally allegiant means, demands of me at any given moment.

When I was a very young man, I grew up in a very different Christian musical tradition than gospel music. But I was surrounded by people who did listen to gospel music. And I was in a setting where I was getting ready to hear the preaching of the word, and the choir sang an old Stamps Baxter song. And in that song, the main chorus was “when he was on the cross, I was on his mind.” And it’s an amazingly rich song in terms of the doctrine of election. And I’ll just tell you, I’ll admit, I was a very young man when I heard it the very first time, and it just encouraged me tremendously. And I thought, this can be narcissistic. And there’s a sense in which Bates says it’s narcissistic. He uses that term even of John Piper and Greg Gilbert’s understanding of the gospel. It’s about me. But I think that’s the apostolic preaching as well. The apostolic preaching is about the elect, but it’s also about the declaration: salvation has come to this house. Salvation has come to me not because of anything I have done, but entirely what Christ has done on my behalf. I don’t know how you put this to music. Be allegiant, stay allegiant. Hope you’re sufficiently allegiant. If you’re not allegiant, become allegiant again, insofar as you know what allegiance means.

 

Tom Schreiner:

Yeah. And I don’t know if we want to talk about this further, but the social-political angle, I was just trying to figure out how this works practically. Because if the gospel is Jesus’s king, and you say that to the world, but it doesn’t necessarily have any effect because you may choose to reject it. So you say to the world . . .

 

Albert Mohler:

What kind of king is he?

 

Tom Schreiner:

Yeah, Jesus is king. And they’re like, well, no, thank you. That’s nice to hear. But I don’t, he uses the word establishing, but how is it established without individuals responding?

 

Albert Mohler:

Or on the day of judgment in the great judgment. Is it a judgment of who’s been sufficiently allegiant?

 

Tom Schreiner:

Then it’s not good news for you.

 

Albert Mohler:

Well, I don’t think it’s good news for anybody. I’ll just be honest. I don’t think it’s good news for anyone. I don’t think anyone could possibly be judged as being sufficiently allegiant to be included in the economy of salvation.

 

Tom Schreiner:

That’s why Machen said when he died, right, “Thank God for the active obedience of Christ. No hope without it.” When Machen who founded the Westminster Seminary, Orthodox Presbyterian Church, when he is dying, he didn’t think “I’ve been a really good person. I founded a denomination. I wrote books.” I think he thought of his sins and said, I trust in Christ righteousness that’s given to me, which I want to say by the way, it is there in the text 2 Corinthians 5:21, the parallel between Adam and Christ, and Romans 5, Romans four, it’s reckoned to us. So he says, it’s not in the text, but it is there.

 

Albert Mohler:

Steve, you’re a systematic theologian. I want to throw this to you in particular. I’ve started out by saying I find it implausible that the church has misconstrued the gospel for 2000 years, that Protestants and Catholics have been arguing about a misunderstanding for 500 plus years. Where does this effort to try to find a new gospel? Oh goodness. To clarify, he doesn’t call this a new gospel. He says this is the gospel, what he’s presenting. But where does this come from, this continual effort in the modern age to find some escape hatch from the theological dichotomies of the Christian tradition?

 

Steve Wellum:

Yeah, you’d have to probably mine his psychology at this point. I mean, it seems to me . . .

 

Albert Mohler:

But he’s not alone. This is third wayism it’s all over the place.

 

Steve Wellum:

I mean, I think there’s a kind of ecumenical thrust. Unite the church. We are divided, so we want a unified church. We want the holy Catholic, apostolic church, not in divisions. So there’s probably a good sense to that. And also I think there’s this correction. I can’t help but think when he ties Jesus is king, ties it to the social aspect because he criticizes that. There is a sense of, it’s a kind of, if we’re not careful, don’t want to attribute this totally to him, but there’s a kind of transformationalist, let’s get together, an ecumenical thrust. Let’s unite the church. Let’s transform society.

 

Albert Mohler:

That’s pretty explicit in someone like N. T. Wright.

 

Steve Wellum:

In some sense, they become political theologians. I mean, eventually, this is where it goes.

 

Albert Mohler:

And it fits the spirit of the age. That’s kind of where I was headed with the question. It would be nice to have an escape hatch from the dichotomies, from the thesis and antithesis. It would be apologetically, socially, politically, culturally advantageous to find a synthesis. I don’t think you can synthesize Protestantism and Catholicism in terms of our understanding of the gospel.

 

Tom Schreiner:

I mean, if it succeeded, you just have a third movement.

 

Jim Hamilton:

Something new

 

Tom Schreiner:

Because the Catholics and Protestants aren’t going away. So then if it succeeded, in part, it’s . . .

 

Albert Mohler:

It’s not a misunderstanding.

 

Tom Schreiner:

You’d just have a third way. You’d create a third group. I mean, he must know.

 

Albert Mohler:

That’s partly what is happening. So I think you put your finger on something. I think that is what’s happening. I think you’ve got, and by the way, maybe that third thing includes some who would be historically Catholic and some who would’ve been historically Protestant, and now they’re both a part of this third thing. And so it may be the last people on earth who can have an honest disagreement, would be a classical evangelical Protestant, and then say a classical credal Catholic, maybe be the last people on the planet who can have an honest disagreement.

 

Jim Hamilton:

I was looking for it, I can’t find it, but I think at one point, Bates positively cites Vatican II, particularly the section Lumen Gentium 16 or so. And what’s interesting about that is that in the development of Roman Catholic theology, you go from Trent, where all the Protestants are going straight to Hell, to now where separated brethren. And there’s really not an accounting for how we went from going to Hell to now being separated brethren. And we’re okay now. And I think that same almost postmodern flare is present in Bates’s work.

 

Steve Wellum:

And I think it’s going to be easier to connect to the secular culture in some sense. We are not talking about election, we’re not talking about sin and regeneration. We’re talking about the king. We’re talking about the transformation of society. Come join us. As I’m reading this thinking, what does this look like in everyday life? And it looks like a kind of, yes, there’s a future, but it’s transformation now. It’s let’s get involved in social action. Let’s get on with climate change. And he never tells us exactly where he goes. But I could just imagine where he’s going to go.

 

Albert Mohler:

Well, let me tell you a question I want to ask. I’m going to tell you a question I want to ask. Does allegiance to Christ allow you to declare you have married a man to a man?

 

Steve Wellum:

Well, that’s a good question because in there, as he’s talking about the Galatian controversy and the old covenant and any works of the law, which he ties to the Old Covenant, all that system is gone. So there’s works, but there is no specific law that we follow. It’s the Spirit working in us that gives us the law of Christ. And I’m thinking, what is this? How are you defining that? What does that look like? Because we know in our own day, people run trucks through that. And so I don’t know, maybe you’ve read some of you guys other parts of his work. I just don’t know where he is at on that. But it seemed like the works that we do, the allegiance that we have isn’t governed a whole lot by command, law.

 

Albert Mohler:

I’ve been doing my job for more than 30 years here, and I’ve had to learn how to do it in the heat of all kinds of controversy. And so oddly enough, I think one of the surprising things to me, in more than 30 years in this job interviewing, for instance, prospective faculty members, which I did just before this conversation. I have learned to go to the outer questions first. I want to know the person’s testimonial coming to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and all the rest. But then, unapologetically, I start asking downstream questions because that tells me everything about what’s upstream. And so, for instance, I asked the sexuality questions. People may say, well, that’s very odd. I’ll say, well, no, the point is I don’t need to have any more conversation with this person. Because if this is what’s downstream, then, because it’s so easy in an interview with a prospective faculty member, for example, to start out with the doctrine of the Trinity. And obviously that’s most fundamental. I want to get back to that––by the way, we require a written response to the entire confession of faith. But time is precious and opportunities are few. So I want to know, okay, downstream, beginning of the conversation, where are we? Then I’ll work back up. It’s kind of the opposite of the way I thought it would work. That make any sense?

 

Jim Hamilton:

Yeah, totally.

 

Tom Schreiner:

And I don’t think, we’re not saying he holds wrong views on this, because we don’t know.

 

Albert Mohler:

No, I’m going to be careful to stipulate that. I’m just saying, so that’s why I asked the question. But that’s the question I would ask if I were here. Is allegiance to Christ compatible with X, Y, Z? Because if so, given the clear teachings of Scripture, we’ll know where we are.

 

Tom Schreiner:

Yeah, absolutely.

 

Jim Hamilton:

Even apart from those questions, another reaction that kept rolling around in my head as I was reading this book was, this man could not join our church. I mean, the statement of faith of our church is the abstract of principles, the Baptist Faith and Message. And we tell people who apply for membership, you can only join this church if you have no settled convictions against what is taught in our statements of faith. And so here’s this guy who could not join our local church who’s trying to correct our understanding of the gospel. I mean, that’s not, that’s a nonstarter.

 

Albert Mohler:

It’s also interesting that he indicts Catholicism in terms of its requirement for the acceptance of all dogma. And that’s presented as in an enumerated set of problems. And again, we’re confessional Protestants. We’re not just Protestant as an adjective. We are confessional Protestants as a noun.

And so our understanding is not radically different than that. We require, for instance, to teach here, to teach in accordance with and not contrary to all that is contained to therein without hesitation or mental reservation or private arrangement with the one who invests him in office. And there’s a sense in which anything stepping back from that, it is not just, I’m not going to hire you as a faculty member. I’m not sure we can be the same church together.

Well, it’s been a good conversation. I appreciate each of you, and I think some people listening to this will say, well, you just picked out one book, and that just went at it pretty hard here. But it’s because we believe the gospel’s at stake. And as I said in the beginning, it’s not just this author. It’s not just this book. It is the effort to redefine the gospel in our age. And so I want to say, I think this book distills the arguments pretty well, and I appreciate the candor with which I think this author, Matthew Bates, has set out many of these arguments. We sincerely disagree, we energetically disagree. I think in the end, it’s important for us to say, we do believe the gospel is at stake. Is that right?

 

Jim Hamilton:

Amen.

 

Steve Wellum:

Oh, absolutely. I mean, as I finished this book, I don’t recognize the gospel, right? It’s not here. Everything is transformed. The language of, even when he speaks about justification, righteous, substitution, king, everything now means something different than what I understand Scripture to say and how it’s placed in historic theology. He’s picked up elements that, I mean, if he actually understood classic Protestantism, reformed thought, we would have a prophet, priest, and king. We would have a kingdom that comes through covenants that gives us forgiveness of sins.

 

Albert Mohler:

Belief no less in the glorious kingdom of Christ.

 

Steve Wellum:

He’s dropping all of what the heart of Christ has done and faith in him and the gloriousness of the Savior, that is, what he’s achieved for us. I mean, he’s got a king who’s achieved something but not justification, righteousness, forgiveness of sins, full payment of our sin before God, which if you don’t have that right, you don’t have the doctrine of God right, you don’t have sin right, you don’t have Christ right.

 

Tom Schreiner:

And he said, right? He said on page 6, he wanted a robust dialogue. And we appreciate his intention to try to communicate the gospel. But I think we’d say at the end of the day, through robust dialogue, we don’t think that you’ve succeeded in explaining clearly what the gospel is. We have fundamental, serious disagreements with what you’re proposing.

 

Jim Hamilton:

Sound theology should really open up the Scriptures for us. It should help us to see more in the Scriptures, help us to understand what’s stated in the Scriptures. And I think if we took his program, his ideas, his way of understanding things, and then read the Scriptures, again and again, we would have to say, well, I have to understand this just precisely the way that Matthew Bates explains it. And we would keep running into places in the Bible where this just doesn’t work.

 

Albert Mohler:

Right. Well, robust debate, maybe a debate that continues, and we’ll see where this debate goes from here.

I want to thank you colleagues for joining with me today in the library.