Continuing my review of The Baptized Body (Moscow, Idaho: Canon Press, 2007), Peter Leithart perfectly communicates the Federal Vision, boldly advancing the premise that God makes all who are baptized with water members of the body of Christ and its conclusion that members of Christ’s body fall from His favor and suffer His eternal wrath. If the Federal Vision mystifies you, Leithart’s book furnishes the key that will unlock the mystery. In chapter four of The Baptized Body, “Apostasy Happens,” he writes:
I’ve argued that the New Testament . . . attributes virtually unbelievable powers to baptism. These wonders of baptism all arise from the fundamental fact that baptism initiates the baptized into the visible or historical church, which I have argued is the body of the Son of God, the Bride of Christ, and (one might add), the temple of the Spirit. Baptism is the water-crossing between membership in Adam and membership in Christ. Baptism grants the baptized a share in the great circumcision that occurred on the Cross, stripping away fleshly loyalties and habits and making us members of a new community. Membership in the corporate body never occurs without a personal connection with the Lord of that body. You can’t be part of the Bride without being married to the divine Husband. Coming into the body through baptism means entering into a personal relationship with the Triune God, a relationship in which we are favored, accepted, given access to the Father and the table of His Son. (Ibid., 83)
According to Leithart, water baptism has “virtually unbelievable powers” that makes someone a member of Christ instead of Adam, turns someone into a member of Christ’s body, and brings someone into acceptance with God. Some of Leithart’s defenders may try to say that in the above quote, he is only defining baptism’s effect in the elect, but Leithart defies any attempt to exonerate him in this way:
Everyone who is baptized — every one — is brought into the body of Christ, ordained to be a priest before God, married to Jesus, and brought into the family of the Father, into the circle of God’s personal favor. (Ibid., 84, emphasis original)
Read that again. Everyone whom the waters of baptism touch becomes a member of Christ’s body, marries Jesus, and joins the circle of God’s favor.
We might conclude that every baptized person, since they are married to Jesus, is going to heaven. However, Leithart emphatically rejects that position:
But that favor does not last, or it does not produce fruit, without faith. Only those who respond in faith fulfill their priestly role rightly, persevere in the marriage covenant with Christ, stay in the family, remain in the circle of God’s favor. Faith is the proper response to the favor of being baptized, the proper response from first to last. It is only by faith that we remain in the body of Christ, and only by faith that the water of baptism poured out on the earth of our bodies will bear fruit. (Ibid., 84)
For Leithart, this does not mean that baptized apostates never had faith; rather, he asserts that they are believers who stop believing:
Someone who is grafted into the body of the Son of God and believes for a time, and then falls away, has simply failed to keep faith. He believed and then he stopped believing. For some it is slow. For some, such as Herman Melville, the wrenching departure lasts a lifetime. (Ibid., 105)
Does Leithart really believe that these converts moved from wrath to favor and back to wrath again? Absolutely. He writes:
God changes His view of and attitude toward the convert and the apostate, moving in one case from wrath to favor and in the other favor to wrath. (Ibid., 99)
Thus, Dr. Peter Leithart, a teaching elder in the PCA, teaches that apostasy really happens. In the end, God consigns members of Christ’s bride to hell.
But don’t take my word for it, read it yourself. If there is any book that clarifies the Federal Vision better than any other, Peter Leithart’s The Baptized Body is it.
Tags: apostasy, Federal Vision, perseverance, Peter Leithart
Hey Wes,
When was this book published? Just curious…
Chip
It is nice that we can reference The Baptized Body through google books so that we wouldn’t have to financially support Leithart or Canon Press by purchasing such a flatly heretical book.
Bishop Leithart is just being faithful, in the reformed Catholicity sense. Here’s a quote from the Mother Church taken from the Catechism of Christian Doctrine #2, page 70, question 13:
Q: How important are the promises of baptism?
A: The promises of baptism are so important that our everlasting salvation depends on keeping them faithfully.
Ye must be covenantally faithful.
I am no advocate of the federal vision or Peter Leithart’s view of baptism or his view of apostasy. (I’m a Baptist and, besides having come from a religious background where there were strong elements of baptismal regeneration, I find teachings that even have a shade of baptismal regeneration distasteful).
However, you would have done well to quote a larger portion of that text on page 99. I think you are doing a disfavor to Mr. Leithart. Whatever the merits (or de-merits) of his theology, Leithart certainly did qualify what he was saying by indicating that this was only in one sense, and in another sense God certainly does not change at all.
Preliminary Principle 3 of the PCA:
And from Chapter 25 of the WCF:
And from Question 63 of the Larger Catechism:
I don’t think your conclusions about Leithart follow from what you’ve quoted. The fact is that all who are baptized are members of the visible Church. Therefore they are members of the body of Christ, members of God’s family, and are under God’s special care and government. It’s clear that there is divine favor towards the baptized reprobates.
It’s also true that there is a non-saving faith, and that the experience and outward appearance of temporary faith is not easily distinguished from true faith. Looking at the context for quote from page 105, it looks to me that Leithart is implicitly making the necessary distinction, it may not be clear enough for other folks here, but that doesn’t mean he’s heterodox.
Brian, thanks for those quotes. If Leithart had stated what was in the quotes you provided, I would not have a problem, but he is obviously saying something different. Your own summaries are also inconsistent and different than what Leithart said.
What specific conclusion that I drew does not follow from the material that I quoted?
The Baptized Body, pg. 105
“Apostates may hear the promise, receive the kind gifts of God, and never believe. They may receive all these things and keep faith for a time. Ultimately, they fall away because they do not keep on believing. They do not keep faith.”
Westminster Larger Catechism
Q. 68. Are the elect only effectually called?
A. All the elect, and they only, are effectually called:although others may be, and often are, outwardly called by the ministry of the Word,and have some common operations of the Spirit;who, for their wilful neglect and contempt of the grace offered to them, being justly left in their unbelief, do never truly come to Jesus Christ.
Q. 79. May not true believers, by reason of their imperfections, and the many temptations and sins they are overtaken with, fall away from the state of grace?
A. True believers, by reason of the unchangeable love of God, and his decree and covenant to give them perseverance, their inseparable union with Christ, his continual intercession for them, and the Spirit and seed of God abiding in them, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace, but are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation.
Mark, is there any sense in which converts go from God’s wrath to favor and then from his favor to wrath?
Pastor White,
It seems clear that you differ with Leithart, but your position is not clear to me.
In rejecting the position “that God makes all who are baptized with water members of the body of Christ”, are you asserting that “some people who are baptized are NOT made members of the body of Christ”?
In rejecting the position “that members of Christ’s body [may] fall from His favor and suffer His eternal wrath”, are you asserting that “members of Christ body cannot NOT suffer eternal wrath”, or just asserting that “those who do suffer eternal wrath didn’t really have “His favor”?
*note: I am understanding phrases “Body of Christ” and “Christ’s Body” to refer to the Visible Church per BCO preliminary principle 3. (Please advise if you are using terms to refer to “Invisible Church” and/or “Elect”)
Andrew, of course I differ from Leithart, but the point of this post is to state clearly what Peter Leithart believes.
Do you believe that I have accurately represented what Peter Leithart is saying? Do you agree with what Leithart is saying? Do you think it accurately represents the Federal Vision? These are the topics of this post.
Please note that one of my guidelines is that you need to stay on topic.
Hi Wes,
My point was not to try to justify Leithart’s discussion of senses, but merely that it is critical to what he was saying and the point he was making in the passage you quoted and your usage of the quote makes it seem he’s saying something he isn’t saying.
Just like you’ve selected a non-serious image (which portrays him in an unflattering light) to attach to your post, I think you’ve likewise selected a passage from his writings and presented it in a way, divorced from some of its context (he was dealing with senses in which what he said is true and senses which it is not).
If I might suggest, supposing Leithart were a non-orthodox heretic–you would still have the duty to, if you would want to act like a Christian gentleman, represent him in the most positive, straightforward, generous light you can (without compromising your convictions of course). Then he would have no reason to complain and perhaps your treatment of him would win him over (your current approach certainly will not). A gentleman can rebuke and correct and critique others, but they do it first of all by representing their opponent in the best light, and if that best light is deficient, then attack THAT! And I have reason to believe, if you would do that, you’d have much better success at rooting out the FV from Presbyteriandom (supposing that is your goal).
On to the question you posed to me…. “Mark, is there any sense in which converts go from God’s wrath to favor and then from his favor to wrath?” Based on how I use the phrases “God’s wrath” and “God’s favor”, I would answer that with an emphatic no. Those who are accepted in the beloved and effectually called can never fall out of that calling. Period.
However……..Just because I want to be precise, I want to recognize that not every single use of those terms that some use might have the same connotations that I’m using when I say that. So, in theory I could conceive of the possibility that someone could use the words “God’s favor” and “God’s wrath” in ways that I probably wouldn’t–understanding “God’s favor” as referring to the imagery of Heb 6 (“enlightened”, “tasted of the heavenly gift” “shared in the Holy Spirit”, “tasted the goodness of the word of God”) and understand God’s wrath as the periods before and after that temporary period of “enlightenment”, or as they might put it “God’s favor”.
And I would concur there is a certain sense in which those things listed in Hebrews 6 certainly are favor conveyed upon people by God (even though I wouldn’t ordinarily call it favor myself), but my clarification would just be that that sort of favor ought not be confused with the special favor conveyed upon those who God has “accepted in the beloved”.
I do find the BCO’s statement “the visible church, which is his [Christ's] body” (PP 3) to be, at best, an unhelpful choice of words.
The WS seem to be careful to apply the term “body” (WCF 25.1), of which “Christ is the head” (WCF 25.1; WLC 64) only to the invisible church. Of course, contra “all the baptized,” it is only members of this body who are said to enjoy “union with Christ” (WLC 65, 66).
The distinct terms “kingdom of Christ”, “the house and family of God,” and “society” are used in the Standards to reference the visible church (WCF 25.2; WLC 62).
Frankly, especially given the current state of things, I think the BCO statement should be amended accordingly
Hi Mark,
The picture is from a link that Leithart had on his church’s web site. I assumed that since he had put them in the public domain as a presentation of himself that he wanted to portray himself in this way.
“If you would want to act like a Christian gentleman, represent him in the most positive, straightforward, generous light you can.” Do you think that you have presented my critique in the most positive, straightforward, and generous light you can?
Here was my summary: “Does Leithart really believe that these converts moved from wrath to favor and back to wrath again?”
Here is what Leithart said: “God changes His view of and attitude toward the convert and the apostate, moving in one case from wrath to favor and in the other favor to wrath (99).”
My summary highlighted the fact that converts move from wrath to favor and then apostate converts move from favor to wrath. The point was not about the immutability of God. I do grant that if that was my point, then it would have been wrong for me not to include his qualification.
Phil, I have to disagree with you here. The WS does not “seem” to be careful. It emphatically asserts that the body of Christ is the invisible church.
Nonetheless, the point here is not about one word. The whole point of my posts on Leithart’s book is that his book positively defies all the attempts that people are making here to try and understand him in a Reformed sense.
Shucks, Wes, I thought my point was both relevant and insightful…
Wes, is the view outlined by leithart above not the very same view of Schilder?
But remember, PCA pastors only vow that they adhere to the “system of doctrine” contained somewhere in the Westminster standards. And each presbytery gets to decide what that system of doctrine is. There’s lots of wiggle room there!
Wes,
As in Wesleyanism, it’s Daisy theology –he loves me, he loves me not.
It is certainly not Pauline: what can separate us from the love of God?
Moreover, it is certainly not the teaching of Jesus –no man can pluck them out of my hand…no man can pluck them out of my father’s hand.
What it seems to be, to me, is the Lutheran position.
Mark, I do not think that it is the same position as Schilder. Do you?
If it’s possible for the magical waters of baptism to convert a person from a child of wrath to a child of God, as Dr. Dr. Leithart maintains; and if it’s possible for that same child of God to re-convert back into a child of wrath, as Dr. Leithart maintains; then I wonder it’s possible, at least according to Dr. Leithart’s novel system, for the apostate to once again be made a child of God, from their second-time state of wrath. And, if so, this proposition raises an interesting question: Would the apostate need the magical waters of baptism to touch his flesh in order to experience this re-birth? Sort of like, “You must be baptized again.”
[...] the miracle of baptism unites even unregenerate strumpets to Jesus Christ. In Wes White’s continuing examination of Leithart he uncovered (no pun intended) this little gem: I’ve argued that the New Testament . . . [...]
Wes,
“It is only by faith that we remain in the body of Christ, and only by faith that the water of baptism poured out on the earth of our bodies will bear fruit.”
Where exactly does faith come from in Leithart’s view? Am curious.
So God changes his mind and yet doesn’t?
The quotes remind us of the BCP baptism formula: http://www.eskimo.com/~lhowell/bcp1662/baptism/index.html
So, baptism unites to Christ IF one has faith. And thus, one moves from being under wrath to being under favor?
If one fails to remain faithful, however, then one stays under wrath? Or is it that he moves from wrath (unbaptized) to favor (in baptism), then (falling away) to wrath again? He loves me; he loves me not; he loves me; he loves me not; he…
So just how does baptism signify union with Christ? (Some “marriage”!)
Maybe if Reverunt Leithhart had included some caveats:
“…baptism [possibly temporarily] initiates the baptized into the visible or historical church, which I have argued is the body of the Son of God, the Bride of Christ, and (one might add), the temple of the Spirit.”
“Baptism is the [sometimes reversible] water-crossing between membership in Adam and [possibly temporary] membership in Christ.”
“Baptism [possibly temporarily] grants the baptized a [possibly temporary] share in the great circumcision that occurred on the Cross…”
“Making us [possibly temporary] members of a new community, baptism means [possibly temporarily] entering into a personal relationship with the Triune God, a [possibly temporary] relationship in which we are [possibly temporarily] favored, accepted, given access to the Father and the table of His Son…”
Etc., etc., ad nauseum.
Yes, and all this to grant people assurance based on their baptism. Go figure.
Ken,
Are you saying that a schizophrenic God is too large a price to pay to give people a useless unreliable assurance? I think that is uncharitable of you.
David,
So I’ve heard. It is also unloving to call someone a Federal Visionist who signs the Federal Vision statement of faith, spoke at The Federal Vision conference, and wrote for a volume entitled The Federal Vision.
Such is today’s PCA.
Actually, what we’re supposed to say is, “yes, they’re a federal visionist, not that there’s anything wrong with that, of course.”
“God changes His view of and attitude toward the convert and the apostate, moving in one case from wrath to favor and in the other favor to wrath.”
Pretty much what the bible says over and over again…
For example:
Ezekiel 33:13″When I say to the righteous *he will surely live*, and he so trusts in his righteousness that he commits iniquity, none of his righteous deeds will be remembered; but in that same iniquity of his which he has committed *he will die*.
Did God lie, when he told the righteous that he would *surely* live? Did He change His mind, or what? He said the man would *surely live*, but he died in his sin. What gives?
No one move from God’s wrath to his love, nor from his love to his wrath.*
The beloved at so in Christ ‘from’ eternity ‘unto’ eternity, while the reprobate are eternally hated.
The former include Abel, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, Peter; in the latter, Cain, Ishmael, Esau, Pharaoh, Saul, & Judas.
Pss 5, 7, 11, and others bear it out.
The calls to repentance and life in Exekiel 33 and elsewhere are to the elect (in that case, amongst the cov’t people).
* ‘Children of wrath’ in Eph 2:3 is obviously no more ‘kids of God’s wrath’ than v. 1 is speaking of disbedience having progeny. The context is God’s love for his elect. But prior to regeneration, we are hateful and hating one another, as well as hating God, full of wrath and blasphemy, anger, malice, etc. See Colossians 3:8 and Titus 3:3 for corollaries on our past state.
Hughmc5 AT hotmail.com
The direct question is: what SPECIFIC benefits accrue to baptized reprobates? The “standard” FV answer has been:
That clearly violates WLC Q&As 61 – 66 and a host of underlying Scripture passages. I’d like to see Leithart, Meyers, Lawrence, and Moon explicitly answer that question with specifics, not tap dancing.
Think of the “unbelieveable powers” this teaching gives to the ordained teaching elder who administers baptism. He holds the power of life and death in his handful of droplets over that tiny individual. Do you see why this teaching is so attractive to the Federal Visionists?
If water baptism holds this much power, why not run out into the streets and grab as many people as you can, and baptize them all? Who cares if their salvation is temporary or permanent? If you adminster baptism to infants who are brought involuntarily to the font, why not handcuff people and force them to be baptized with this “magical water”? Call it the Federal Vision strategic plan for church growth.
This teaching promotes two things: Fear instead of love for God and no assurance of salvation. These two things are what Federal Vision false teachers exploit in order to control people.
What I always find amazing is the extent of charity given in protecting a man’s reputation over the truth of the Gospel. That’s a true sign that something is rotten in the state of Denmark.
I think the FV does want to offer assurance. FV thinkers argue that assurance is better found through the “objective” grace of baptism. Assurance is real and continuous as long as one looks to his baptism.
Are you saying that according to Federal Vision teaching, the outward sign of baptism is the only assurance we have of our salvation? That the outward sign is the same as the spiritual reality?
That would be the same as saying that because Peter Leithart wears a white robe, he is therefore spiritually holy and pure before God. In other words, wearing a white robe is the “objective” reality of his spiritual holiness. Whenever, he wonders if he is holy or defiled, he should look to his white robe.
“But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing in him [not by looking to one's baptism] you will have life.” John 20:31
The Israelites died in the wilderness and never entered the Promised land because they did not believe. Faith alone.
The Federal Vision is an outward religion of works directed only and limited to the visible church. It is empty of of the spiritual reality of the invisible true church. It is the husk without the corn; the scaffolding without the building; the shadows without the substance.
Everyone who holds to baptismal regeneration has to account for apostasy, since it is evident that not everyone who is born again by water continues in the faith. Augustine solved the problem by maintaining that only the elect were given the gift of perseverance. This grace was not given in baptism, therefore, truly regenerate people who were not elect, could not and would not continue in the grace given them in baptism.
Leithart rejects the distinction between visible and invisible church. The visible church is the only church. Simply saying, as all Reformed paedo-baptists do, that baptism unites to the visible church are not necessarily agreeing with Leithart because we understand that union with the visible church is not necessarily incorporation into Christ spiritually and savingly.
For Leithart baptism really conveys the new birth of John 3. Anyone who is baptized is really, truly, spiritually united to Christ, his sins are really forgiven, he has a new nature implanted within, he is indwelt of the Holy Spirit, he has true, saving faith as God’s gift, he is adopted as a child of God, all the promises are his. In other words all the benefits of the Covenant of Grace are really and truly his. If he died right after baptism he would go to Heaven. How could he not?!
However, Leithart also believes that he must maintain his saving faith in Christ lest he forfeit all these benefits. He believes that a person who is truly united to Christ can lose his union and all its benefits. Think about this brothers, a person can be disunited from Christ, he can lose the indwelling of the Spirit, he can again come under condemnation, he can be disinherited and cast out of God’s family. Christ’s blood which once washed him, is withdrawn so he is no longer washed.
Where is the efficacy of the atonement here? The baptized are truly justified. Their sins are really forgiven. Therefore, Christ really and truly atoned for their sins otherwise there could be no forgiveness. But, according to Mr. Leithart all that can be revoked. Their sins can be laid back on them. The efficacy of the death of Christ can be canceled.
Where is “the promise made to those who are justified that there remains therefore then no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus”? I am not condemned today, but there is no guarantee for tomorrow. Paul was wrong apparently because there remains the possibility of condemnation for those who are now in Christ Jesus.
Where is the blessedness of adoption? God calls you his son, but then disinherits you?
The Spirit’s indwelling is the guarantee, the downpayment, of our future inheritance, or maybe not, depending on your faithfulness.
Christ begins a good work in your through baptism, but may fail to complete it.
Christ is the author, but may not be the finisher of your faith.
Brothers, Mr. Leithart and a whole host of hyper-covenantalists, who may not go all the way with the Federal Vision, really espouse such things. For them, baptism really is amazingly powerful. You don’t want to believe that a PCA or OPC minister could hold to such God dishonoring views, but such men really do. I wish it were not so, but it is.
There is a question that remains. Does Mr. Leithart believe that it is up to the believer to maintain his saving faith or does he think that God sovereignly preserves it in the elect, who are a subset of all the baptized? The answer to that question will determine whether he is a semi-Pelagian or Augustinian. In either case, he is not Reformed according to the system of doctrine taught in our Standards, nor is he even Protestant.
What you just described can be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church using just slightly different words. The only things missing are venial and mortal sins along with penance as the second plank of salvation in case you make a shipwreck of your faith, which I guess can happen in FV if you aren’t faithful to the covenant. What could be more anti-Reformed, anti-Westminster, or anti-Scriptural under the guise of Christianity?
Thank’s for making this point, Bob. Federal Vision heresy is nothing more than Romanism in a different package. A papist receives sanctifying grace in baptism, which gives him new life, but he can loose it by committing mortal sin. The only way to restore that sanctifying grace is through the “sacrament” of penance. How is this any different than what Leithart and other Federal Visionists teach? It is a damnable doctrine.
Brandon said, “I think the FV does want to offer assurance. FV thinkers argue that assurance is better found through the “objective” grace of baptism. Assurance is real and continuous as long as one looks to his baptism.”
Brandon, the FV believes that all covenant members are invited to attain to a full confidence that they are eternally God’s elect. In baptism they have that assurance and are marked as God’s elect and maintain that elect standing as long as they persevere in faithfulness. How can one have any assurance, if there is the possibility that they may not remain in faithfulness? If not even the elect persevere then how can there be any hope? This scheme is no different than the Roman Catholic scheme, which offers grace to everyone at baptism, but can loose it. There are no Reformed standards that teach this kind of heresy. The Scriptures do not teach it.