Assessing Gospel Allegiance Through the Lens of John 1

Recently, The Gospel Coalition and Southern Baptist Theological Seminary have published articles and videos critical of Matthew Bates’s work—particularly his latest book, Beyond the Salvation Wars. I haven’t read that volume yet, but I plan to begin by working through his earlier work, Gospel Allegiance. His central thesis is laid out clearly in the introduction.

Here’s a concise summary of that introduction:

Matthew Bates begins Gospel Allegiance by contrasting two stories—one of lifelong loyalty (Hiroo Onoda) and one of momentary conversion (Billy Graham)—to highlight the need to recover allegiance as the biblical response to the gospel.

He argues that popular evangelical presentations often reduce the gospel to a message of personal salvation or justification by faith alone, neglecting its central proclamation: that Jesus is the risen and reigning King. In Scripture, he contends, the Greek word pistis (faith) frequently implies loyal allegiance, not merely belief.

Bates critiques both “free grace” and “lordship salvation” models as inadequate. He calls for a fuller gospel framework—one that centers on allegiance to Jesus as essential to salvation. His proposal is meant to correct distortions, deepen discipleship, and realign the church’s message with the biblical vision.

As I read through this book, I want to examine how Bates’s arguments hold up in light of the Gospel of John.

Why John? Because it is distinct among the four Gospels. And from my initial reading of Bates, there seem to be places where his claims don’t align comfortably with John’s presentation of the gospel. Any work that seeks to offer a comprehensive understanding of the gospel—its content and its required response—needs to engage with all four Gospels. After all, the Gospels are the gospel.

At the outset, I want to say that I’ve appreciated much of what I’ve read by Bates. He helpfully revives the synoptic emphasis on the Kingdom of God, Jesus as the promised King, and the royal themes often missing from modern gospel presentations. The concept of “allegiance” has even proven helpful in my own attempts to explain the right response to the gospel.

However, I’m also unsettled by some of his claims. The notion that personal salvation is not part of the gospel’s content, the elevation of allegiance as the primary response, and the tendency to downplay salvation as central to the gospel (viewing it instead as a secondary effect)—all give me pause.

I’ll be using the Gospel of John as a lens to test Bates’s ideas. My hope is not to dismiss them outright but to engage them honestly and critically, and see whether they stand in line with what Scripture proclaims.