Earlier today, Jeff Asher on His Bibletalk Facebook post wrote this:
Matt Allen continues to spew his twisted error: “Many people today see obedience as the price of salvation. But the gospel flips that logic: obedience is the proof of salvation. Noah’s faith didn’t make God gracious; it made grace visible.”
No one sees obedience as the price of salvation. I’d like for Matt to produce the quotation (his reference to Willis is a poor reading of what Mike said at best and a mistepresentation at worst). Yes, obedience is essential to the faith that saves, but no one believes that we are saved by anything other than the blood of Jesus.
Matt separates faith from obedience. The statement above buts salvation after faith and before obedience. He has Noah saved before he ever drives a nail. But, Noah did mot walk on dry until AFTER the ark was built, entered, and sailed. Similarly, we are not SAVED manifest the obedience of faith.
____________________________________
My response:
First, I have never taught—nor even implied—that salvation occurs before obedience. Noah was not finally saved until he built the ark, entered it, and the Lord shut him in. What I write above explicitly says that the ark, not Noah’s merit, was the God-provided instrument of deliverance. What I pointed out, following the sequence of Genesis 6:8–9 and Hebrews 11:7, is that God’s favor appears in the text before Noah’s obedience does. That is not a theological invention; it is the order Moses recorded.
Second, you claimed that “no one sees obedience as the price of salvation.” Respectfully, this simply isn’t accurate. Many Christians—inside and outside our fellowship—struggle with a performance-based view of God where His favor is seen as something earned, triggered, or activated only when they have “done enough.” My statement was describing a mindset, not accusing any specific brother of a formal doctrine. The reality is that countless Christians live with fear-driven obedience instead of grace-driven confidence, and the text in Genesis speaks directly to that.
Third, you said I separate faith from obedience. I do not. In Scripture, obedience is the expression of faith, not a separate category from it. Hebrews 11:7 literally says that Noah built the ark “by faith.” James 2 teaches that genuine faith is seen through obedient action. My language—“obedience is the proof of salvation”—is simply another way of saying what James said: “I will show you my faith by my works.”
Fourth, your criticism conflates two distinct ideas: favor and final salvation. The text says Noah “found favor” before his righteous character is described and before any command is given. That favor is not final salvation; it is the relational beginning point. Noah’s obedience came next, and his deliverance through the flood came last. Grace → faith → obedience → salvation. That is the sequence Genesis and Hebrews present.
Finally, your closing statement—“we are not saved until we manifest the obedience of faith”—is exactly right, and I affirm it wholeheartedly. But Romans 1:5 and 16:26 call this “the obedience of faith,” meaning obedience that comes from faith, not obedience that precedes it. My entire point was simply to highlight the order Scripture presents: God moves first, faith responds, obedience manifests that faith, and God saves the obedient believer. There is nothing radical or new in that.
My goal has been to show a biblical pattern repeated from Genesis to the cross: God initiates, and we respond. That emphasis does not minimize obedience; it explains the heart behind it.
If we disagree on terminology or emphasis, that’s fine. But my article stayed within the bounds of Scripture, and nothing in it undermines the necessity of obedient faith, including baptism, repentance, confession, or discipleship.
I’m always open to conversation—but it must begin with an accurate representation of what was said - something of which you seem to have a hard time doing.
This article was the subject of an article by Mike Wills in the December issue of Truth Magazine.
I appreciate Mike taking the time to read my article and respond in such detail. I appreciate his desire to defend what he believes Scripture teaches. I also want to say this plainly: I do not question his sincerity, and I do not doubt his commitment to the gospel. We simply differ in our reading of the Noah text, and that’s what I am addressing. I have known Mike personally for over 20 years and respect his work in the gospel.
First, a point of clarification. He repeatedly asserts that I teach unconditional election, unconditional forgiveness, or a form of “once in grace, always in grace.” That is not my belief, nor have I ever taught such. In fact, in multiple published writings, I have explicitly rejected Calvinistic election, inherited depravity, irresistible grace, and the notion that obedience is unnecessary. Anyone who reads my work—whether on Romans, Titus, or 1 John—knows this. And in this post, I never argue that Noah was saved without obedience, nor that righteousness doesn’t matter. The entire article ends by emphasizing obedience as the visible fruit of grace—not a replacement for it.
Second, his critique frames my point as if I were suggesting that Noah was saved before faith or that God accepted him “without regard to his character.” That is not what I wrote. What I argued is exactly what the text itself highlights: before God ever gave Noah a command, before a boat existed, before the first board was cut, God initiated the relationship. “But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord” (Gen. 6:8). Grace begins the story. Noah’s righteousness, faith, obedience, and perseverance follow. This does not teach unconditional election; it teaches what the rest of Scripture consistently affirms—that God moves first in mercy, and human response follows.
Third, he raises a technical argument about Hebrew word order. While I appreciate his concern, my point does not rest on an English paraphrase, nor does it depend on reversing subjects and objects. The narrative emphasis remains unchanged: v.8 signals divine favor; v.9–12 unpacks Noah’s character and God’s assessment of the world. I’m not arguing Hebrew grammar—I’m pointing to the theological intent. He may disagree with that reading, but it is not a “Calvinist” reading. It is the same grace-first pattern embedded throughout Scripture—whether in Israel’s deliverance (Ex. 19:4), in Jesus' calling disciples before they understood Him, or in Paul’s affirmation that God “demonstrates His love toward us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”
Fourth, he suggests that my view implies Noah’s later sin was automatically forgiven or that repentance is unnecessary. Again, this misrepresents what I believe and what I teach. I affirm exactly what Scripture does: sin separates; repentance matters; forgiveness is conditional. Nothing I wrote denies that.
Fifth, he expresses concern that my emphasis on grace “leads to” broader doctrinal errors. I understand that fear. But I would ask readers to judge my teaching by what I have actually written over the years—not by assumptions about where they think it might lead. I’ve spent three decades preaching repentance, baptism, holiness, and faithful obedience. I stand exactly where I have always stood: salvation is by grace, through faith, expressed in obedient trust. God initiates; we respond. That is not Calvinism—that is the Bible.
Finally,
Since he accused me of plagiarism with Clay Gentry's article, let me clarify what actually happened. Clay Gentry shared his article with me several days before I wrote mine. I appreciated his reflections. Then, over the weekend of November 7–9, I came across a sentence in a Rubel Shelly book—“deliverance comes before discipleship.” That line sent me into deeper reflection on how often Scripture follows that pattern: the Exodus, David’s covenant, Jesus calling the disciples, and more. I decided to write a series of articles on this.
As those examples began forming in my mind, I remembered Clay’s article. His piece helped spark my thinking, but the article I eventually published grew out of my own study and conclusions. And importantly, I did cite Clay directly and even linked his article in my post. That is the opposite of plagiarism.
Plagiarism is copying someone’s work or ideas without attribution. In this case, the attribution was explicit. My article stands on my own reasoning and wording, shaped—as all writing is—by the work of others I openly acknowledge.
I appreciate the dialogue. My hope is simply that our conversations remain rooted in Scripture, marked by fairness, and carried out in love.
Earlier today, Jeff Asher on His Bibletalk Facebook post wrote this:
Matt Allen continues to spew his twisted error: “Many people today see obedience as the price of salvation. But the gospel flips that logic: obedience is the proof of salvation. Noah’s faith didn’t make God gracious; it made grace visible.”
No one sees obedience as the price of salvation. I’d like for Matt to produce the quotation (his reference to Willis is a poor reading of what Mike said at best and a mistepresentation at worst). Yes, obedience is essential to the faith that saves, but no one believes that we are saved by anything other than the blood of Jesus.
Matt separates faith from obedience. The statement above buts salvation after faith and before obedience. He has Noah saved before he ever drives a nail. But, Noah did mot walk on dry until AFTER the ark was built, entered, and sailed. Similarly, we are not SAVED manifest the obedience of faith.
____________________________________
My response:
First, I have never taught—nor even implied—that salvation occurs before obedience. Noah was not finally saved until he built the ark, entered it, and the Lord shut him in. What I write above explicitly says that the ark, not Noah’s merit, was the God-provided instrument of deliverance. What I pointed out, following the sequence of Genesis 6:8–9 and Hebrews 11:7, is that God’s favor appears in the text before Noah’s obedience does. That is not a theological invention; it is the order Moses recorded.
Second, you claimed that “no one sees obedience as the price of salvation.” Respectfully, this simply isn’t accurate. Many Christians—inside and outside our fellowship—struggle with a performance-based view of God where His favor is seen as something earned, triggered, or activated only when they have “done enough.” My statement was describing a mindset, not accusing any specific brother of a formal doctrine. The reality is that countless Christians live with fear-driven obedience instead of grace-driven confidence, and the text in Genesis speaks directly to that.
Third, you said I separate faith from obedience. I do not. In Scripture, obedience is the expression of faith, not a separate category from it. Hebrews 11:7 literally says that Noah built the ark “by faith.” James 2 teaches that genuine faith is seen through obedient action. My language—“obedience is the proof of salvation”—is simply another way of saying what James said: “I will show you my faith by my works.”
Fourth, your criticism conflates two distinct ideas: favor and final salvation. The text says Noah “found favor” before his righteous character is described and before any command is given. That favor is not final salvation; it is the relational beginning point. Noah’s obedience came next, and his deliverance through the flood came last. Grace → faith → obedience → salvation. That is the sequence Genesis and Hebrews present.
Finally, your closing statement—“we are not saved until we manifest the obedience of faith”—is exactly right, and I affirm it wholeheartedly. But Romans 1:5 and 16:26 call this “the obedience of faith,” meaning obedience that comes from faith, not obedience that precedes it. My entire point was simply to highlight the order Scripture presents: God moves first, faith responds, obedience manifests that faith, and God saves the obedient believer. There is nothing radical or new in that.
My goal has been to show a biblical pattern repeated from Genesis to the cross: God initiates, and we respond. That emphasis does not minimize obedience; it explains the heart behind it.
If we disagree on terminology or emphasis, that’s fine. But my article stayed within the bounds of Scripture, and nothing in it undermines the necessity of obedient faith, including baptism, repentance, confession, or discipleship.
I’m always open to conversation—but it must begin with an accurate representation of what was said - something of which you seem to have a hard time doing.
This article was the subject of an article by Mike Wills in the December issue of Truth Magazine.
I appreciate Mike taking the time to read my article and respond in such detail. I appreciate his desire to defend what he believes Scripture teaches. I also want to say this plainly: I do not question his sincerity, and I do not doubt his commitment to the gospel. We simply differ in our reading of the Noah text, and that’s what I am addressing. I have known Mike personally for over 20 years and respect his work in the gospel.
First, a point of clarification. He repeatedly asserts that I teach unconditional election, unconditional forgiveness, or a form of “once in grace, always in grace.” That is not my belief, nor have I ever taught such. In fact, in multiple published writings, I have explicitly rejected Calvinistic election, inherited depravity, irresistible grace, and the notion that obedience is unnecessary. Anyone who reads my work—whether on Romans, Titus, or 1 John—knows this. And in this post, I never argue that Noah was saved without obedience, nor that righteousness doesn’t matter. The entire article ends by emphasizing obedience as the visible fruit of grace—not a replacement for it.
Second, his critique frames my point as if I were suggesting that Noah was saved before faith or that God accepted him “without regard to his character.” That is not what I wrote. What I argued is exactly what the text itself highlights: before God ever gave Noah a command, before a boat existed, before the first board was cut, God initiated the relationship. “But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord” (Gen. 6:8). Grace begins the story. Noah’s righteousness, faith, obedience, and perseverance follow. This does not teach unconditional election; it teaches what the rest of Scripture consistently affirms—that God moves first in mercy, and human response follows.
Third, he raises a technical argument about Hebrew word order. While I appreciate his concern, my point does not rest on an English paraphrase, nor does it depend on reversing subjects and objects. The narrative emphasis remains unchanged: v.8 signals divine favor; v.9–12 unpacks Noah’s character and God’s assessment of the world. I’m not arguing Hebrew grammar—I’m pointing to the theological intent. He may disagree with that reading, but it is not a “Calvinist” reading. It is the same grace-first pattern embedded throughout Scripture—whether in Israel’s deliverance (Ex. 19:4), in Jesus' calling disciples before they understood Him, or in Paul’s affirmation that God “demonstrates His love toward us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”
Fourth, he suggests that my view implies Noah’s later sin was automatically forgiven or that repentance is unnecessary. Again, this misrepresents what I believe and what I teach. I affirm exactly what Scripture does: sin separates; repentance matters; forgiveness is conditional. Nothing I wrote denies that.
Fifth, he expresses concern that my emphasis on grace “leads to” broader doctrinal errors. I understand that fear. But I would ask readers to judge my teaching by what I have actually written over the years—not by assumptions about where they think it might lead. I’ve spent three decades preaching repentance, baptism, holiness, and faithful obedience. I stand exactly where I have always stood: salvation is by grace, through faith, expressed in obedient trust. God initiates; we respond. That is not Calvinism—that is the Bible.
Finally,
Since he accused me of plagiarism with Clay Gentry's article, let me clarify what actually happened. Clay Gentry shared his article with me several days before I wrote mine. I appreciated his reflections. Then, over the weekend of November 7–9, I came across a sentence in a Rubel Shelly book—“deliverance comes before discipleship.” That line sent me into deeper reflection on how often Scripture follows that pattern: the Exodus, David’s covenant, Jesus calling the disciples, and more. I decided to write a series of articles on this.
As those examples began forming in my mind, I remembered Clay’s article. His piece helped spark my thinking, but the article I eventually published grew out of my own study and conclusions. And importantly, I did cite Clay directly and even linked his article in my post. That is the opposite of plagiarism.
Plagiarism is copying someone’s work or ideas without attribution. In this case, the attribution was explicit. My article stands on my own reasoning and wording, shaped—as all writing is—by the work of others I openly acknowledge.
I appreciate the dialogue. My hope is simply that our conversations remain rooted in Scripture, marked by fairness, and carried out in love.
—Matthew Allen

Another great lesson on God’s Grace! Thankful for this story of Noah’s faithful obedience and acceptance of God’s Grace, Love, and Mercy
Thank you so much! Glad to hear you’re enjoying the series.