Gospel Allegiance: What Faith in Jesus Misses For Salvation in Christ

Bates’ 'Gospel Allegiance' is a great read for anyone interested in the gospel and the meaning of faith. He argues convincingly that pistis (faith) is not merely intellectual belief but an active allegiance to Jesus, calling for a faith that involves loyalty and faithfulness. Bates also highlights the centrality of Jesus as the Christ/King, showing how the gospel is about the kingship of Jesus. This book is great for anyone wanting to dive deeper into a more biblical understanding (rather than one shaped by reformational readings that are foreign/forced into the biblical text) of the gospel message, faith, grace, and works.

He repeats and 'shouts' his position but doesn't argue very well. He twists words (like faith) to mean something it doesn't. He uses scholarship terribly, by making authors say what they don't. He wants to marry Roman Catholicism, Orthodox, and Reformed doctrine - an impossible task! (Unless you make words mean different things). Fundamentally, he calls on the dead to act by living a certain way, conflating justification and sanctification, ignoring the work of the Spirit (Eph 2:1-2). His intention to reinvigorate discipleship is fantastic, yet falls short. Don't buy for edification, only buy to critique.

This is a follow up to previous works which fails to take into account substantive criticism of his exegetical method in the interim. His attempts to introduce works into salvation are based on re-defining words and illegitimate totality transfer, and is sure to undermine assurance where this takes hold. Noble aim, but sadly lands well wide of the mark.

After reading Bate's book I felt compelled by his desire to produce a """"community of loyal disciples"""" (94). Bates has noble intentions and desires to see people transformed by the gospel; confident to live a godly life. Unfortunately his representation of the gospel ends up doing the opposite. His gospel inevitably becomes a concoction and conflation of misleading doctrines. As a result he leaves the reader with a soteriology devoid of assurance and in essence a 'Christless' gospel.

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. \\r\\n\\r\\nBut 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. \\r\\n\\r\\nBates' 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.