If you have read my previous post on the Federal Vision’s view of visible church benefits, then it should be easy to understand what Peter Leithart is saying here:
The Standards use terms like justification, sanctification, union to Christ, and adoption in a stipulated way; according to the standards, these blessings, by definition, belong only to the elect.
Thus, when he is asked, do you believe the saving benefits in the Standards are given to the non-elect, his reply will be, no, that is impossible by definition.
At the same time, he is free to ascribe “almost unbelievable powers” to what baptism does to the entire visible church. This includes stripping away fleshly habits, making one a member of Christ, saving someone from God’s wrath, bringing someone into God’s favor and acceptance, and giving them access to the Father (see my post here for verification).
After this, someone may say that it sounds like he’s ascribing to the non-elect what the Standards reserve for the elect. But in his mind he is not. Since the benefits in the Confession include eternal election and salvation in their definition, he can ascribe virtually anything to the non-elect temporarily and not be in conflict with the Standards.
I admit that it can sound right to say that the benefits in the Standards belong “by definition” only to the elect. The reason why is that they do only belong to the elect. But the Confession is not saying that the benefits that it describes are an eternal-type justification, an eternal-type sanctification, and an eternal-type faith. What it describes is justification, sanctification, and faith, and then it makes the additional assertion that these things cannot be lost.
For example, the Westminster Standards describe justification as forgiveness of sins. When it says that the non-elect do not get justification, it does not mean that the non-elect do not get an eternal justification (though this is also true) but that they do not get forgiveness of sins at all (for further reasoning along this line, see the first part of this article). The Standards then go on to affirm that someone in this state can never be lost (11.5). Similarly, they make the additional assertion that these benefits belong to all the elect and the elect only (3.6). What they mean is that the things described by justification, sanctification, and adoption never go to the non-elect. They do not mean that some obscure technical sense of these benefits does not go to the non-elect but that other lesser versions that go by the same names and possess the same properties do go to the non-elect.
I would submit to you that this is the cause for most of the confusion in regard to Federal Vision. Our General Assembly recognized that the Federal Visionists do affirm the Standards. However, they also stated, “Moreover, to affirm the Standards, and then redefine the terms used in the Standards, is not to affirm the Standards.” Thus, when we deal with the Federal Vision, we are obligated to take seriously this redefinition of the Standards. When we do this, things that seem unclear will all of a sudden become clear.
The FV argue for the following undefined ordo salutis: 1.) covenantal election, 2) covenantal faith & repentance, 3) covenantal justification, 4) covenantal sanctification, and no glorification.
They also adamantly agree with the ordo salutis in the Confessions, but they are not sure if one gets glorification here either until after death.
Does not sound like real joy, real peace, or real hope are possible.
I think there’s more to be said than that. When you read the Bible, most of it is from a covenantal perspective, according to FV. The decretal election, faith & repentance, justification, and sanctification are marginalized and the “covenantal” benefits trump the decretal benefits.
I do think that what you’ve said here is a good way to put it. I’m going to use that. Thanks, Dean.