I would say that the most foundational error in the book is his rejection of the “dual aspects of the covenant,” a matter which I consider essential to good Reformed theology and well balanced Calvinism. Reformed theology at its best accepts all that Scripture teaches about both divine sovereignty and human responsibility, even though tying this all together in a neat logical system transcends human rational ability.

A few months ago, I met Charles, a deacon in a large Baptist church. He told me that he had once seriously considered becoming a Lutheran after reading some of Peter Leithart’s books. Unless he could find an answer to some of Leithart’s arguments on issues such as baptismal efficacy and union with Christ, joining a church with views more compatible with Leithart’s views seemed the responsible course of action. Charles read books on Lutheranism, talked with a Lutheran pastor and visited Lutheran worship. I must say that I admire Charles’ integrity. He didn’t begin making dubious claims that Leithart’s soteriology is somehow compatible with the second London Confession and begin promoting a Federal Vision faction within his own church. He began looking for a church whose current doctrine is compatible with the new doctrines he was considering. In the end, Charles determined that he did not need to find a new church home as a matter of conscience. He eventually found some articles against the Federal Vision which answered his concerns.

Soon after our meeting, Charles gave me a copy of Leithart’s The Baptized Body and asked me to read it. I did so, and then Charles and I had a good discussion about the book. If one wants to figure out what the Federal Vision is all about, this is a good book to read and discuss. As Leithart says, “… in my view the Federal Vision is centrally about the issues I address in this book …” (ix).

Canonpress, the publishing ministry of Christ Church (CREC) in Moscow, Idaho, published The Baptized Body in 2007. That was the same year that the PCA General Assembly received the study report on the Federal Vision. As one who served on that study committee, I believe that this book would have been a significant resource for the study committee if it had been available at the time. Some Federal Vision proponents tend to downplay the revolutionary implications of some of their new and distinctive convictions, but not Leithart. I find his candor refreshing.

… some associated with the Federal Vision are quite traditionally Reformed in their sacramental theology and ecclesiology. Others, such as myself, are more critical of some aspects of traditional Reformed theology and suggest revisions, some of which have radical and wide-ranging implications (ix).

He later refers to “the need for a root-and-branch reform of our baptismal theology” (4). He is advocating radical change and not minor reforms. He knows this and admits it. We should take him at his word.

I would say that the most foundational error in the book is his rejection of the “dual aspects of the covenant” (55-56), a matter which I consider essential to good Reformed theology and well balanced Calvinism. Reformed theology at its best accepts all that Scripture teaches about both divine sovereignty and human responsibility, even though tying this all together in a neat logical system transcends human rational ability. From the perspective of divine sovereignty, the covenant of grace is God’s unconditional plan to accomplish salvation for the elect through the finished work of Christ and to apply that salvation to the elect through the efficacious work of the Spirit. From the perspective of human responsibility, the covenant of grace is a historical administration which involves means and obligations and which not only decisively impacts the lives of the elect but also affects in varying degrees the lives of many non-elect.

These dual aspects also apply to the church. The church in its invisible aspect is the church from the perspective of God’s secret decretive will, the church as only God can see it. The church in its visible aspect is the church from the perspective of its human administration as regulated by the principles of God’s revealed preceptive will.

There is also a dual aspect to the work of the Holy Spirit in the church. The Holy Spirit is invisibly working in the church a deep work of efficacious grace, not indiscriminately but in conformity to God’s secret decree of election. All are dead in sin, but the Holy Spirit enables only the elect to embrace Jesus Christ freely offered to them in the gospel. The Holy Spirit uses the word to work faith in the hearts of the elect, and uses the word, sacraments and prayer to increase and strengthen that faith (WCF 14.1). Yet the Holy Spirit is also working in the church a broader work in accordance with God’s desire for obedience to His revealed will. God works with genuine sincerity in the lives of some non-elect through the free offer of the gospel and the common operations of the Holy Spirit.

I accept by faith that the will of God is consistently unified when understood from God’s eternal perspective. Yet when I consider God’s will from my limited perspective as a finite creature, I see this dualism of the secret decretive will and the revealed preceptive will. God has sovereignly decreed the fulfillment of His comprehensive plan for history as the means for bringing to Himself the greatest glory. Glorifying and enjoying Himself is God’s chief end, even as it should be ours (WSC 1). Yet God also has a sincere and genuine desire for His created free agents to obey His revealed will. In the mystery of divine providence, God is in total control of the historical process without being morally responsible for the decisions of His created free agents. God sincerely and genuinely grieves at creaturely disobedience to His commands, even though that disobedience is part of His sovereign plan. Here is where I plant the flag of mystery and cry out that God’s ways are higher than my ways and past finding out.

Leithart objects to this understanding of God’s working in and through the church in terms of these “dual aspects,” and he offers his “suggested revisions.” On the surface, Leithart’s revisions are radically simple. He strips away all the nuances. Baptism with water simply puts a person into a personal union with Christ with no qualifications and incorporates him into the Body of Christ with no qualifications.

Those who are baptized into the church share in Jesus Christ, and in Him they are introduced into the Triune fellowship of Father, Son, and Spirit. If the church is the body of Christ, the humanity of the Son of God, then this conclusion is inevitable. If the church, the historical and visible church, is the bride of Christ, then membership in the visible church involves us in marriage to Christ. We are members of His body as much as a bride is a part of her husband’s flesh. Baptism is the wedding ceremony, and after the wedding we are promised that Jesus will treat us as His own body, for “we are members of His body” (v. 30) (73-74).

To be saved is to be priests and kings to God, fulfilling our human offices in the Last Adam (Rev. 1:6; 5:10). To be saved is to be a participant in the global mission of the church (Mt. 28:18-20). To be saved is to be gifted to edify the church (1 Cor. 12). To be saved is to receive a new family identity, to become part of the family of God stretching back to Abraham (Gal. 3:27-29). To be saved is to receive promises of a future. To be saved is to take a particular stance in the world and to be on Jesus’ side in the great cosmic battle that is human history. Baptism incorporates the believer into all that. By baptism, we are made kings and priests commissioned to take the gospel to the nations, gifted to edify the church, ingrafted into the family of Abraham, given hope for a new future. Baptism is “saving” in all these senses (74-75).

I don’t see how a relationship with God can ever be purely legal or purely external. Those who minister in the church have been caught up in the work of the Spirit of Jesus, the saving work of the Spirit of Jesus. They are participating in the salvation of the world. Some who do this might eventually fall by the wayside …, but while they are in the church they are sharing the life that is the church’s salvation (75).

Even if we limit ourselves to the soteriological features of the ordo salutis, we find that the New Testament connects baptism to all these realities. These benefits are given to the baptized who share in the life of the body of Christ. For instance, Paul links baptism to justification in Romans 6:1-7 (75).

In baptism, God judges sin, declares the baptized righteous, and delivers the baptized from death into the new life of the Spirit-filled body of God’s Son (76).

When we are washed in baptism, we become saints in this sense, consecrated by the Spirit, with access to the holy place of the church and the holy food reserved for priests. Justification too is linked with washing here. Those who are washed are righteous – included among the company of the righteous, made righteous in Jesus the Righteous (76).

To be baptized is to become a child in the household of the Father and a brother to Jesus Christ because to be baptized is to be inducted into the family of God, the body of Christ (77).

The baptized are implanted into Christ’s body, and in Him share in all that He has to give. What baptism gives is not some collection of blessings, but the meta-gift of Christ, union with the whole Christ, head and body – necessarily head and body, for Christ is not divided (78).

To be justified, on this view, is to share in the life of the justified community, the people whom God regards, because they are in Christ, as “righteous” in His sight. To be a saint is, in this view, to share in the life of the communion of saints. To be adopted is to be among the sons and daughters of the Father, and to be regenerated is to share in the life-in-the-Spirit that simply is the life of the body of Christ (78).

All of the quotations immediately above are from the chapter which Leithart says is “[t]he most important chapter in this little book …” (ix).

Yet Leithart recognizes that not everyone who is baptized with water is going to heaven. So he argues that some who are in this saving personal union with the whole Christ do not persevere in this union. This is where he plants the flag of mystery:

Ahh, but someone sitting next to me has received the same baptism, hears the same words, eats at the same table, and yet falls away. … Ultimately, we cannot explain this. … How can anyone who has been brought into the abundant life of the body of Christ find some other life appealing? (104).

He plants the flag of mystery here, but he also seems a bit confused. He says that ultimately people fall away because of divine hardening. Then he says that apostates simply fail to keep the faith; they believe and then stop believing. Then he says that they may keep faith for a time. Then he says, “Apostasy doesn’t sneak up on people who are keeping faith” (104-105).

Let me note here that Leithart’s teaching that apostasy is the loss of a saving union with Christ is a radical departure from the teaching of the Westminster Standards:

They, whom God hath accepted in his Beloved, effectually called, and sanctified by his Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved (WCF 17.1).

In presenting his “suggested revisions,” Leithart stresses that baptism with water is what puts a person into this saving union with Christ. He even goes so far as to say,

Sacraments are not “signs of an invisible relationship with Christ,” as if a relationship with Christ might occur without them (21).

The new birth comes not merely by water, not merely by Spirit, but by water and Spirit. And this is the way that Jesus makes disciples. He personally enlists disciples into His service through the physico-spiritual combination of water and the Spirit (81).

Yet he acknowledges in a footnote that an unbaptized person who believes in Christ on a desert island with no opportunity ever to receive baptism, does end up in heaven (78, footnote 11). Leithart says that “he will be saved in the end” and that he “is in fact eventually united to the body of believers in the eschaton.”

The Baptized Body does make some good points with which I agree. Leithart rightfully notes that “[i]nner and outer are two dimensions of one united human life” (6). He critiques Lockean individualism (8). He discusses the significance of the Triune God as personal absolute (16-17). He defines grace as God’s personal favor as opposed to some sort of impersonal saving substance or force (15-16). He explains that God both sovereignly plans history from eternity and participates within history in time (24-28). What all these discussions, however, have in common is an effort to promote Leithart’s view of baptism with water. All of these discussions can be spun in that direction, but these are hardly proofs or even evidences that the Holy Spirit works through baptism with water to put both elect and non-elect into a saving union with Christ.

Leithart has other discussions as well that point in the same general direction. He suggests that the sacraments should be discussed using not four terms (God, grace, sacraments, church) but only three (God, sacraments, church) (18). Of course, if we remove grace from the discussion, then there is no discussion of when a sacrament does and does not function as a means of grace. Instead of using the terms means of grace and symbol, he prefers to refer to the sacraments as rituals. Why? Because “[r]ites accomplish what they signify” (23). He negatively characterizes the efforts of traditional Reformed theology to state clearly that the sacraments are efficacious means of salvation only in a context of saving faith, as a hesitancy to use the Bible’s sacramental language “except in somewhat hushed tones” (31).

So here we have Leithart’s simple but radical revisions: everyone who is baptized with water is thereby put into a saving union with the whole Christ; some persevere in this saving union, and others do not. Now I want to present my alternative to Leithart’s revisions.

Let me begin by considering an adult who truly believes in Christ for salvation and then is baptized with water. According to my understanding, he was saved the very moment he first believed. That moment was the time of his regeneration, the time of his legal transition from divine wrath to peace with God, the time of his deliverance from the dominion of sin, and the beginning of his lifelong experience of progressive sanctification. As Jesus said, “… he who believes in Me has everlasting life” (John 6:47). The Apostle Paul agrees: “… having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ …” (Romans 5:1).

When this believing adult is baptized with water, he is already in a saving union with Christ, and he is already a member of the church in its invisible aspect. Yet certain things do happen when he is baptized with water. His saving union with Christ is sacramentally portrayed, he publicly identifies with Christ and His church, and he officially becomes a member of the church in its visible aspect. His baptism with water is a public expression of His union with Christ and His saving work. In this limited sacramental sense, he is baptized into remission of sins (Acts 2:38) and his sins are washed away (Acts 22:16). God can also use his baptism with water as a means of grace to strengthen and confirm his faith in Christ. As the Christian’s faith in Christ grows, he experiences more and more of Christ’s saving power to deliver him from sin. In this sense of strengthening saving faith, baptism with water can and does save. Yet baptism with water is not what initially puts a person into a saving union with Jesus.

This explanation certainly fits better with Cornelius’ experience in Acts 10 than does Leithart’s “suggested revisions.” Peter preached to Cornelius that those who believe in Jesus receive remission of sins. Then Jesus baptized Cornelius with the outpoured Holy Spirit. Only then did Peter command for Cornelius to be baptized with water. Cornelius was already in a saving union with Jesus before his baptism with water.

My above interpretations of baptism use a helpful insight from the Westminster Confession of Faith:

There is, in every sacrament, a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified: whence it comes to pass, that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other (WCF 27.2).

For convenience, I will refer to the basis for my interpretations above as the sacramental hermeneutic. I will also refer to the basis for the interpretation that baptism with water always effectually initiates a saving union with the whole Christ as the sacerdotal hermeneutic.

A fatal problem with the sacerdotal hermeneutic is that it proves too much. For example, John the Baptist said that he baptized with water “unto repentance” (Matthew 3:11). This expression in the Greek uses the same preposition which Peter used on Pentecost when he referred to being baptized “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). Both expressions refer to being baptized into something, to being fully and permanently immersed into something, to being put into an effectual and lasting union with something. If we interpret Matthew 3:11 with the sacerdotal hermeneutic, then the Baptist’s baptism always effectually initiated a condition of repentance in the hearts of those baptized. Yet when some Pharisees and Sadducees came to John for baptism, John didn’t praise them for seeking a sacerdotal infusion of repentance. The Baptist called them a brood of vipers and exhorted them to bear fruit that is worthy of repentance (Matthew 3:7-8). If we instead interpret Matthew 3:11 with the sacramental hermeneutic, the essential meaning of the Baptist’s statement “I indeed baptize with water unto repentance” is that God can use his baptism to strengthen the repentance that already exists in the hearts of those baptized.

Later Paul spoke of the one baptized as united together in the likeness of Christ’s resurrection (Romans 6:5). If we interpret this with the sacerdotal hermeneutic, then everyone baptized with water will live this life in the power of Christ’s resurrection and will be resurrected unto life on the last day. Also, in John 6:51, Jesus said, “I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.” If we interpret this verse with the sacerdotal hermeneutic, then everyone who has ever partaken of the Lord’s Supper is assured of eternal life. Again, the sacerdotal hermeneutic proves too much. It causes verses to say things that are clearly contradicted by other more didactic passages. Not everyone who has been baptized with water and not everyone who has partaken of the Lord’s Supper has eternal life.

Let’s now consider an adult who professes to believe in Jesus but really doesn’t. When he is baptized with water, he then officially becomes a member of the church in its visible aspect. He is not in a saving union with Jesus, nor is he a part of the church in its invisible aspect. He does receive a new identity through his baptism with water, but it is that of a washed pig who still loves the dirt (2 Peter 2:22). He has been sacramentally washed, yet he is still inwardly a pig. If his baptism with water had effected a saving union with Jesus, he would no longer be the spiritual equivalent of a pig. Peter used the washed pig metaphor to refer to false teachers in the church. Peter also referred to them as spots and blemishes (2 Peter 2:13). Peter obviously did not view them as people with the same saving personal union with Christ as that enjoyed by those whose destiny was heaven.

Paul noted that it was possible to be a Jew outwardly without being a Jew inwardly (Romans 2:28-29). I believe it is also possible to be a Christian outwardly without being a Christian inwardly. Paul warned that the judgment which came upon outward Jews for their unbelief could also come upon professing Christians (Romans 11:22).

A baptized hypocrite is indeed baptized with water, and he is united to the church in its visible aspect. In this sense, he is a branch on the Vine (John 15:2). Yet he does not abide in Christ with that vital saving union which inevitably results in the bearing of spiritual fruit. He will eventually make manifest, in this life or the next, that he never was in a vital saving union with Christ. No one who abides in Christ with a vital saving union is ever cut off as a branch that bears no fruit (John 15:1-8; 1 John 2:19).

Yet I must admit that Paul in his letters to churches did often make broad and sweeping references to the members of those churches as saints who are in a saving union with Jesus. He also wrote in places as if all those who were baptized with water were united with Christ and His saving work. I believe the best explanation is that Paul was writing to these churches with the judgment of charity. He was giving the benefit of the doubt and addressing all in those churches as the believers which they professed to be. Yet Paul in his letters to churches also periodically acknowledged the possibility that some may not have been the believers they professed to be. For example, Paul made such a qualifying statement in Romans 8:9:

But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.

Thus those who were baptized with water were indeed in a saving union with the whole Christ and His saving work, if indeed they truly were believers in Jesus. These qualifying statements are sprinkled throughout Paul’s letters to churches. Paul was addressing churches as concrete expressions of the body of Christ within history. Only God can see a local congregation in terms of its invisible aspect and infallibly sort out the regenerate from the non-regenerate at any given point in time. Paul was viewing churches in terms of their visible aspect and doing so with the judgment of charity. I think that Paul’s use of the judgment of charity as evidenced by these qualifying statements is a much better explanation for the existence of apostasy within these churches than is Leithart’s theory that a saving union with Christ can be lost.

There are other errors in the book, and I will mention a few of them. Leithart disagrees with the teaching of the Westminster Standards on assurance (100-104). He offers this alternate view:

How can I know that my name belongs within the “us” when Paul says “Nothing can separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus”? How can I know that the Spirit is speaking to me?

Easy: I heard Him.

God addressed this promise to me in my baptism; He addresses this promise to me every week when I hear a minister pronounce the absolution of sins; He renews this promise to me, out loud, every time I hear a sermon; He addresses this promise to me every week when I come to His table to eat and drink in His presence. Through these the Spirit woos me, hugs me, encourages me, kisses me, feeds me, visits me, clothes me, challenges me, rebukes me, convicts me, changes me. There is no doubt that the Spirit is addressing me. I can hear Him speak, though He uses human vocal chords or ink and paper. I have no doubt that I’m included in the “us” that is not separated from Christ because I heard God include me in that “us” (103-104).

I am not saying that these things should not have a role in one’s assurance of salvation, but I think this is a very truncated basis for assurance. The Westminster Standards have a much more complete and nuanced explanation. See Chapter 18 of the Westminster Confession of Faith. As is typical, the Westminster Standards are only trying to organize and present what the Scriptures teach on this subject. I refer to the Westminster Standards’ teaching on assurance as a three legged stool. The objective leg is the promise in Scripture that all who believe in Jesus are truly saved with a salvation that cannot be lost. Salvation is not based on some obstacle course that I have little hope of completing in this life, nor is it something that I can have today and lose tomorrow. The experiential leg is the evidence of my transformed life. If I am indeed in a faith relationship with Jesus, then I am not only forgiven for my sins but also delivered from their effective lordship in my life experience. The subjective leg is the testimony of the Spirit. I understand this to be a mysterious subconscious witness that protects the true believer from utter despair. All three legs are necessary for a balanced sense of assurance. I think this explanation is a much more complete summary of the Scripture’s teaching on this subject than is Leithart’s explanation.

The Baptized Body has a whole chapter on apostasy (83-111). I agree with Leithart that the apostate forfeits real and significant benefits when he leaves the church. What I disagree with is Leithart’s teaching that what the apostate loses is the same saving union with Jesus that is enjoyed by the regenerate elect. His primary examples of apostates are King Saul from the Old Testament and Judas from the New. There is nothing here to prove that either man was ever truly regenerate. The Holy Spirit can give an individual special gifts or abilities without saving him. Consider the pagan prophet Balaam and the message of 1 Corinthians 13 about the superiority of the grace of love to any gifts of revelation or power. Perhaps Leithart’s best evidence for his position is the statement in 1 Samuel 10:9 that God gave Saul another heart, but even this is not compelling evidence. In verse 6, we read that God turned Saul into another man, but the specific context there is the Spirit’s giving Saul the gift of prophecy. The Hebrew phrases here translated “another man” and “another heart” are never used elsewhere to refer to regeneration. Even if they were, they can certainly be used in this context to refer to something less. I will not here give a detailed argument against apostasy as a loss of a real saving union with Christ. I will simply point out that if Leithart is correct on apostasy, then on the last day Christ will not say to any apostate the words “I never knew you” (Matthew 7:23). The words that are more consistent with Leithart’s explanation of apostasy are “I used to know you.”

Leithart also puts in a plug for paedo-communion in an appendix (129). Earlier in the book, he has some good arguments for paedobaptism (10-11). Yet even there I think he goes a bit overboard in his discussion of infant faith and an infant’s ability to establish personal relationships. He seems to be going beyond defending infant baptism and encouraging an openness to his arguments for paedo-communion.

For further study, I recommend the PCA position paper on the Federal Vision.

Grover E. Gunn is a minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is serving as interim pastor of McDonald PCA in Collins, Miss. This article appeared on his blog and is used with permission.