Thread by @_matthewpearson

Long thread of my initial reaction to Leithart’s The Baptized Body:
I really enjoyed this book. Leithart is a brilliant writer and helps to illuminate certain concepts in a way I would have never thought of before. This book was very stimulating and definitely challenged some

of my traditional Reformed presuppositions. I don’t agree with everything I read in the book, but I can definitely say that I was overall edified by Leithart, even in areas where I disagreed with him. I’ll go through what I found to be positives and negatives of the book.

Positives: Leithart presents a very unique sociological perspective to ecclesiology and how it correlates to soteriology. This perspective helps to understand his position and provides a unique framework through which one can read passages about the church and salvation

(his ‘Do baptists talk to their babies’ section was delightful and incredibly unique). His brief critique of Lockean individualism and social contract theory helped to shed light on how many western Christians today view baptism through presuppositions rooted in the political

philosophy of Liberalism. His exegesis in demonstrating that whenever the New Testament speaks of “baptism” it is almost always referring to the water rite of baptism was very convincing and exegetically consistent. His replacement of the “visible and invisible church” with the

“historical and eschatological church” was also very unique and helpful to understanding his position, though I still am comfortable with the traditional reformed language of visible & invisible church. Though I still affirm perseverance of the saints, his chapter on apostasy

helped to challenge a lot of my beliefs and really made me think and spend lots of time on the scriptures he presented to back what he stated, especially in regard to the examples of Saul and Judas truly knowing God but still falling away. Finally, the appendix in the back on the

sociology of infant baptism, though somewhat repetitive of the first chapter, helped to bring all that the first chapter had stated back into view in light of what Leithart had presented throughout the book. Lots of good stuff that I will hang onto.

Now, the negatives: I would like to preface my negatives by reminding y’all (especially the Leithart stans) that these negatives are my personal and initial reactions. I’m still chewing on a lot of the meat Leithart gave, so this again is just my initial reaction after just

having finished the book.
Tbh, though the case was initially convincing I can’t get behind the sentiment that all who are baptized are united to Christ. This primarily comes from the fact that I believe the classic Reformed dichotomy of the visible & invisible church is… well,

accurate and biblical! Leithart’s argument in a nutshell is that a better dichotomy is the historical & eschatological church, the baptized join the historical church (which is united to Christ), and therefore all that are baptized are united to Christ. I don’t however believe

that this is consistent with the whole of scripture. Contra Leithart’s claims, I believe it is possible to be in a covenant relationship with Yahweh yet also be not truly united to him (shocker ik, especially after reading this book). This isn’t me just inserting my Reformed

presuppositions into the text, Paul demonstrates this concept in Romans 2:28,29 where he speaks of how no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly and who possesses physical circumcision, but rather a true Jew is one inwardly and one with true spiritual circumcision of the heart.

The same can be applied to Christians. In the same way one can be a Jew outwardly and possessing an outward circumcision yet still not be a true Jew inwardly possessing spiritual circumcision, so too can one be a Christian outwardly, joined to the visible church through baptism,

yet not be a Christian inwardly with true union with Christ. They can benefit from membership in the visible church, experiencing blessings and tasting the heavenly gift, the word of God, and the powers of the future age and yet still not be united to Christ. 1 John 2:19 states,

“They[apostates] went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.” This verse indicates that apostates were never truly “of us” in regard to the

church, yet scripture explicitly indicates that apostates truly participated in the life of the church and were members of it (heck just read Hebrews and 2 Peter). This is even indicated in 1 John 2:19 itself, as it states the apostates went out FROM us, meaning that had to have

been a part of the “us” in order to depart from it, yet John still states they never really were “of us.” John here isn’t contradicting himself, he’s heavily inferring the concept of a visible church vs an invisible church, as the apostate went out from the visible church, but

were never truly apart of the invisible church. The classical Reformed dichotomy is able to make much more sense of this passage than the Leithartian distinction of a historical & eschatological church. This also works better with passages like Matthew 7:21-23, where Jesus

declares to the apostates “I never knew you, depart from me you workers of lawlessness.” It is first important to note that in verse 21 the apostates cry to Jesus “Lord, Lord.” They double his name to address him, which is frequently used throughout scripture as an address of

intimacy (Gen 22:11, 1 Sam 3:10, 2 Samuel 18:33, Luke 22:31). This indicates that the apostates weren’t claiming a mere knowledge of Christ or membership in his visible body, they were claiming INTIMATE relationship with Christ, or another way to say it… a union with Christ.

Their claims of prophesying in Christ’s name and casting out demons in his name and doing many mighty works in his name are all built on their positive claim that they were in union with Christ as shown through their addressing of him in intimate terms. Jesus in response doesn't

repudiate them for once being in union with him but not keeping that union. He instead completely negates their claim of union with the most terrifying words in the world: I. Never. Knew. You. This isn’t the same as a mother disowning her son by screaming to him that she never

knew him (though biologically he is family), no, this is Jesus directly negating their claim of deep and intimate union with him. They never had this. They may have had membership in the visible church, but they never experienced true union with Christ. It is on this ground that

Jesus dismisses them. Romans 6:5, which Leithart uses to show that baptism unites all to Christ, I feel doesn’t work well with his system. Leithart says that all who are baptized are united to Christ (as indicated by Romans 6), however the baptized can still fall away. Romans 6:5

however says that if the baptized have been united with Christ in a death like his “we shall CERTAINLY be united with him in a resurrection like his.” Yet not all who are baptized will be CERTAINLY resurrected, as even Leithart admits. If union with Christ promises certainty to

being resurrected with him, it’s difficult to say that baptism unites all to Christ. It reminds me of the story of Simon the magician in Acts 8. He received baptism, yet he was clearly not saved and was from the beginning a reprobate. I would break this down in relation to his

baptism, but I believe Jerome can state it better than me. Jerome states, “If those who were baptized into Christ clothed themselves with him, it is clear that those who did not clothe themselves with Christ had not been baptized into him. To those who are reckoned to be faithful

and to have embraced the baptism of Christ it was said, ‘Clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ.’ If anyone has received only the bodily baptism of water that is visible to fleshly eyes, he has not clothed himself with the Lord Jesus Christ. For Simon [the magician] in the

Acts of the Apostles had received the baptism of water, yet he had not clothed himself with Christ because he did not have the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, the heretics, hypocrites, and those who lead morally reprehensible lives appear on the surface to receive baptism, but I do

not know if they have the clothing of Christ. Therefore, let us take heed lest by chance someone among us be taken by surprise and rebuked for not having been baptized into Christ because he does not have the clothing of Christ.” There are a few other points I could touch on, but

for the sake of this being a long twitter thread I’ll end my negatives here. To reiterate, I genuinely enjoyed this book and found myself being edified by it. It caused me to think hard about how I view baptism and how I view sociology. Leithart is a fantastic writer and this

introduction book to his writings was fantastic. I already want to see what else Leithart has to offer in other books and I look forward to studying more of his material in the future.

Thanks again for all who recommended him to me. That’s it lol, congrats if you read this far haha, had to brain dump all this info.

@threadreaderapp please unroll this!