With the seventh chapter of Michael Martin's The Case Against Christianity, on the subject of salvation by faith, we at last have a place where it seems that Martin is engaging in a little original thought rather than simply relying on the works of others of like mind uncritically -- not that it helps much, for as usual, much of what Martin concludes is reliant upon his rather poor comprehension of what he is reading. The basic premise of the chapter is summarized thusly [202-3]:

There are at least four ideas of salvation suggested by the creeds, the Gospels, and Paul's letters. The first, presented in the synoptic Gospels, is that one is saved by following a strict ethical code that goes beyond the Jewish laws. According to the second, which was also presented in the synoptic Gospels, one is saved by making great sacrifices in following Jesus. The third, maintained by Paul and John, is that one is saved by having faith in Jesus. Paul seems to suppose that this is sufficient and necessary only for those people who lived after Christ came. The fourth, suggested in Paul's letters, is that one can be saved before Christ by following the Jewish laws.

Is Martin correct, and are there really four ways to salvation taught in the NT?

Actually, no -- Martin is only half correct. The NT offers only two ideas of salvation. Surprised? You shouldn't be. It's always been known that the Scriptures teach a second way to earn eternal life, but chances are, you've already missed the boat and are ineligible: I'm talking about Martin's Method #1, living according to a strict moral code. Technically, if you live by a strict moral code every moment of your life from day 1 and never do an evil thing or think an evil thought, you'll make it into heaven free and clear. The problem is -- and this is where Martin also misses the point -- is that no one has the ability to pass muster by this method. Only Jesus, by the reckoning of Christian theology, succeeded here. If you think you've managed so far, however, do drop me a line. (And be careful not to be arrogant about it....I'd hate to ruin your chances. For more on the role of the law now, see here.)

At any rate, thus it is we see little need to answer what Martin was written on this Method #1. He is right that it is presented in the Gospels; where he is wrong is in thinking that this Method is not highlighted by commentators because they are too enamored of Paul and John and their faith-salvation method. The reason it isn't highlighted is because it's simply impossible, and why bother explaining to people how to do things that are impossible for them? Why not release a book on how to take the Earth by a dog leash and change its orbit? (Our only complaint for this section is that Martin cites Luke 13:24 -- without quoting it -- as indicating this method, which few can follow. Jesus' reply says nothing at all about a strict moral code being at issue.)

On, then, to Martin's Method #2. He asserts that the synoptic Gospels teach that one can be saved by giving up everything and following Jesus, and offers as proof of this a story Martin has failed to comprehend before, although he does not offer it this time except in a footnote: That of the rich young ruler, which properly understood, reveals just how impossible Method #1 above is. Now really, folks...when that fellow professed to have followed all the commandments, do you think he was on the ball? Do you think he had actually followed every one of the Jewish laws perfectly? If you think so, I have some Libyan lakefront property to sell you. At best his profession is a typical ANE exaggeration for the expression of zeal (so that Jesus saw him as an ideal candidate for true loyalty); at worst it is a funny irony. Jesus, at any rate, showed that the ruler had one big stumbling block: Here he had just given Jesus a compliment equating him with God; and yet, darned if he'd give up his wealth to follow someone like that.

Martin, at any rate, actually realizes that the disciples' question, "Who then will be saved?" does indeed serve to point to the fact that "Jesus' ethical standards for salvation are so high that no one, including the disciples, can meet them." [199] But then he notes Matt. 19:25-9//Mark 10:29-30 ("I tell you the truth," Jesus replied, "no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age (homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields--and with them, persecutions) and in the age to come, eternal life."), told with the parable of the householder and the vineyard workers; and then, after a bit of objection about how vague the parable is, concludes that it might be readable as support his #2 Method of salvation. That doesn't fit the parable at all, since there is no indication that any of the laborers gave up anything at all (above and beyond themselves) to do the householder's work and earn his pay; nor, from a social perspective, is there any reason to think that they did. The parable does carry hints that one needs to be employed (believe in, accept the authority of) by the householder (Jesus) to get paid (be saved), and that how long you work for him won't matter as long as you are hired at some point. But this would permit Method #1 or #3 (salvation by faith) to be the major focus. It does not teach #2 at all. Nor do the Gospels say, as Martin alleges, that the disciples would be "saved" because of their sacrifice in serving Jesus, although they do say that the disciples will be rewarded for it. "To say the least, it is difficult to make sense of all this," [200] Martin bewonders. And no wonder: When you can't even understand what you're reading, that's usually what happens.

Method #3, salvation by faith in Jesus, is of course (we agree) taught in John and Paul, and we also noted in our item here that it is hinted at in the Synoptics. Martin does go on to make his usual objections about lack of clarity in the texts, but we know by now that he really hasn't studied the issues enough to make such statements authoritatively. Finally, there is Method #4, which we need not address, for in practical terms, even if it were an actual road to salvation, it would have no practical use today, and is about as likely in terms of odds for success as Method #1!

Martin goes on to evaluate the doctrine of salvation, devoting a significant section to the question of "What happens to those who do not hear the Gospel?" We answer this here; for this essay let it only be said that this question is less often a serious inquiry and more often a straw man excuse for someone who has heard the Gospel to reject it. If God is fair and just, then all will be fairly dealt with, whether their voluble self thinks so or not; if God is NOT fair and just, what will you do? Complain to a higher authority?

At any rate, we may close this response by noting briefly Martin's claim that the four routes to salvation are incompatible with belief in an all-good God. All he really does, though, is repeat errors found in other chapters. "Surely an all-good God would not want his creatures to follow the implausible, strict, ethical code laid down by Jesus." [204] What's that? A perfectly good God doesn't want us to be perfectly good too? I think I'd better clean my ears out after that one. "How could a good God want us to have no concern for the future...?" No such thing, as we pointed out in Ch. 6, is found in the Gospels, except by Martin's inability to read clearly. "How could an all-good God condemn people for being angry with someone or punish a person with the fires of hell for calling someone a fool?" How could an all-good God NOT do such things? I'm glad that God doesn't share the wink-and-nod, pat-on-the-head, aw-gee view of sin that Martin proposes.

Finally, Martin raises the irrelevant question of how extraterrestrials are saved -- which assumes that they need salvation. Personally, I think (as C. S. Lewis did) that if any such life exists, it has been advised that we are under quarantine and are best avoided! And with pedantry like CAC being published uncritically, it would be little wonder!