What do you think?
Rate this book
The Baptized Body
What does baptism do to the baptized? Nothing? Something? In this study, Peter Leithart examines this single question of baptismal efficacy. He challenges several common but false assumptions about God, man, the church, salvation, and more that confuse discussions about baptism. He aims to offer a careful and simple discussion of all the central biblical texts that speak to us about baptism, the nature of signs and rites, the character of the church as the body of Christ, and the possibility of apostasy. In the end, the author urges us to face up to the wonderful conclusion that Scripture attributes an astonishing power to the initiation rite of baptism.
152 pages, Paperback
First published June 12, 2007
21 people are currently reading
310 people want to read
About the author
Peter J. Leithart
130 books364 followersPeter Leithart received an A.B. in English and History from Hillsdale College in 1981, and a Master of Arts in Religion and a Master of Theology from Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia in 1986 and 1987. In 1998 he received his Ph.D. at the University of Cambridge in England. He has served in two pastorates: He was pastor of Reformed Heritage Presbyterian Church (now Trinity Presbyterian Church), Birmingham, Alabama from 1989 to 1995, and was founding pastor of Trinity Reformed Church, Moscow, Idaho, and served on the pastoral staff at Trinity from 2003-2013. From 1998 to 2013 he taught theology and literature at New St. Andrews College, Moscow, Idaho, where he continues to teach as an adjunct Senior Fellow. He now serves as President of Trinity House in Alabama, where is also resident Church Teacher at the local CREC church. He and his wife, Noel, have ten children and five grandchildren.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 102 reviews
October 21, 2014
In the Preface, Dr. Leithart describes the purpose of this book as being about "...Baptismal efficacy, to be sure, but more importantly and fundamentally, the nature of signs and rites, the character of the church as the body of Christ, the possibility of apostasy." But, he says, at its heart is the central affirmation that "...Without qualification or hedging, the church is the body of Christ."
To that end, he effectively builds out this affirmation, in a way that I would describe as "organic" to Scripture and context. Too often, both in the Reformed world and mainline evangelicalism, we rely on awkward systems (Two Kingdoms and Dispensationalism as examples, respectively) in order to make sense of Scripture's language regarding ecclesiology. That's why Chapter 3 is so valuable: "The 'Body of Christ' is the Body of Christ". In this chapter, Leithart's points are exegetical and show that when churches are spoken of as the "Body of Christ", the biblical writers are referring to everyone in the church as being baptized members of the Body of Christ. Wild idea that.
Another feature of this book that I find immensely edifying is the treatment of Scripture's use of signs and rites (this means the New Testament, too!). Here, Leithart doesn't shy away from speaking on these topics in the same way that the Bible does. Few points of doctrine highlight the extent to which the Church has co-opted the epistemologies of modernism as do symbols and rites. You want to see an evangelical squirm in his pew? Tell him that baptism DOES something; or tell him that Communion IS communing.
The essay in the back of the book, "The Sociology of Infant Baptism", was also beneficial. Reform-types baptize their infants and then fail to raise them as Christians; while Baptistic-types raise their children like Christians, but refuse to admit that they are believers. So what this essay unpacks is the soteriological aspects of Christian sociology. Reformers are critiqued for their inconsistency, and Baptists are critiqued for their adoption of modernism's autonomous-man syndrome.
Read this book. You will see things differently. Amen.
To that end, he effectively builds out this affirmation, in a way that I would describe as "organic" to Scripture and context. Too often, both in the Reformed world and mainline evangelicalism, we rely on awkward systems (Two Kingdoms and Dispensationalism as examples, respectively) in order to make sense of Scripture's language regarding ecclesiology. That's why Chapter 3 is so valuable: "The 'Body of Christ' is the Body of Christ". In this chapter, Leithart's points are exegetical and show that when churches are spoken of as the "Body of Christ", the biblical writers are referring to everyone in the church as being baptized members of the Body of Christ. Wild idea that.
Another feature of this book that I find immensely edifying is the treatment of Scripture's use of signs and rites (this means the New Testament, too!). Here, Leithart doesn't shy away from speaking on these topics in the same way that the Bible does. Few points of doctrine highlight the extent to which the Church has co-opted the epistemologies of modernism as do symbols and rites. You want to see an evangelical squirm in his pew? Tell him that baptism DOES something; or tell him that Communion IS communing.
The essay in the back of the book, "The Sociology of Infant Baptism", was also beneficial. Reform-types baptize their infants and then fail to raise them as Christians; while Baptistic-types raise their children like Christians, but refuse to admit that they are believers. So what this essay unpacks is the soteriological aspects of Christian sociology. Reformers are critiqued for their inconsistency, and Baptists are critiqued for their adoption of modernism's autonomous-man syndrome.
Read this book. You will see things differently. Amen.
January 15, 2009
Outstanding work.
March 8, 2024
God used this book as a sledgehammer to shatter my baptismal theology.
Read: June 2022, March 2024
Read: June 2022, March 2024
April 17, 2024
Fantastic. Likely the book on baptism that I will recommend to friends and family henceforth.
April 11, 2009
Argues the radical thesis that, in the New Testament, baptism means baptism, and that baptism does everything attributed to it. Why didn't someone in the Reformed tradition think of this sooner? Maybe it takes awhile to get over our knee-jerk reaction to Rome.
Leithart also argues that sacraments repair the original design of creation. Grace repairs nature, it does not lay down a "separate track" that intersects with regular life at a later conversion experience. Infant baptism restores the infants relationship to God that was disrupted by the fall, so that nature and grace work on the same track from the beginning of life. Thus, through the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper, New Covenant life resembles the way life would have been lived under the Adamic covenant.
Christians shouldn't raise children so as to bring them into the covenant, but we should raise them from within the covenant. Leithart says that we start talking to our children not because they understand us, but so that they will. Baptism is God's language whereby he starts talking to his children and initiates a relationship with them. Sacraments are word after all.
Leithart also argues that the terminology "means of grace" makes grace sound like a substance that can be channelled. I would add that it seems to resonate with scientific ways ways of thinking about raw materials. Leithart suggests that the gift imagery of Scripture doesn't need help here. In the covenant, grace works naturally upon our children as we talk of the things of God when we get up, lay down, and walk along the way (Deut. 6:4-6).
Leithart also argues that sacraments repair the original design of creation. Grace repairs nature, it does not lay down a "separate track" that intersects with regular life at a later conversion experience. Infant baptism restores the infants relationship to God that was disrupted by the fall, so that nature and grace work on the same track from the beginning of life. Thus, through the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper, New Covenant life resembles the way life would have been lived under the Adamic covenant.
Christians shouldn't raise children so as to bring them into the covenant, but we should raise them from within the covenant. Leithart says that we start talking to our children not because they understand us, but so that they will. Baptism is God's language whereby he starts talking to his children and initiates a relationship with them. Sacraments are word after all.
Leithart also argues that the terminology "means of grace" makes grace sound like a substance that can be channelled. I would add that it seems to resonate with scientific ways ways of thinking about raw materials. Leithart suggests that the gift imagery of Scripture doesn't need help here. In the covenant, grace works naturally upon our children as we talk of the things of God when we get up, lay down, and walk along the way (Deut. 6:4-6).
January 7, 2024
Very helpful explanation of what baptism does and how it relates to ecclesiology. It is challenging at points. If you've drank deeply at the well of contemporary Reformed theology, you're going to want to throw this book against the wall. Why? Because zleithart forces you to reckon with all of the Scriptures that challenge your system. Read and be edified, even if you don't walk away in 100% agreement.
May 6, 2025
Absolutely excellent. Dr. Leithart always makes me think deeply about the Bible. This was very meaty. For those who are interested in learning more about the efficacy of baptism, this would be a great introduction. Also, JBJ’s appendix on the sociology of infant baptism was so stinkin good.
March 17, 2025
Outstanding.
July 4, 2023
Great book. The short parable chapter, “The Tale of Three Servants” itself was well worth the price of the book
.
The argument is simple:
1. “Baptism” means baptism
- The texts that use the word baptism mean the ritual of baptism
2. “The body of Christ” means the body of Christ
- Baptism actually joins you to Christ. From that point, you can either continue in faith or fall away. Leithart uses the parable of the soil here to substantiate his point.
3. Apostasy happens
- This is to address the what ifs of points 1 and 2. What about so and so who was baptized but fell away? Again Leithart utilizes the parable of the soil, the Hebrews apostasy passages, John 15, and Romans 11 where there is some sort of true relationship (the branches were attached to Christ and the apostates of Hebrews were sanctified by the blood of the covenant) but they still fall away.
In sum, baptism truly unites a person to Christ, such that they may continue in faith or fall away all according to the decree of God because God uses secondary means to accomplish His purposes, namely, word and sacrament.
.
The argument is simple:
1. “Baptism” means baptism
- The texts that use the word baptism mean the ritual of baptism
2. “The body of Christ” means the body of Christ
- Baptism actually joins you to Christ. From that point, you can either continue in faith or fall away. Leithart uses the parable of the soil here to substantiate his point.
3. Apostasy happens
- This is to address the what ifs of points 1 and 2. What about so and so who was baptized but fell away? Again Leithart utilizes the parable of the soil, the Hebrews apostasy passages, John 15, and Romans 11 where there is some sort of true relationship (the branches were attached to Christ and the apostates of Hebrews were sanctified by the blood of the covenant) but they still fall away.
In sum, baptism truly unites a person to Christ, such that they may continue in faith or fall away all according to the decree of God because God uses secondary means to accomplish His purposes, namely, word and sacrament.
March 18, 2009
Excellent overview of the issue of baptism looking at what the Scriptures say about baptism, the body of Christ and apostasy. The appendix is also very good on why a paedobaptist view is more consistent with how God made the world than a believer baptism view.
September 28, 2018
Leithart is at it again, and this time he won't even wait for the argument to get to paedobaptism before pissing off the Baptists and even the whole majority of the Reformed church.
The book is about baptism efficacy, and Peter is his usual provocative self, always trying to be more Scriptural than tradition itself, and thus recovering a long-buried Tradition under tradition. He seemingly takes a wrecking ball to a few load-bearing pillars of Calvinism (justification by faith alone, eternal election, visible/invisible church, perseverance of the saints) and yet weasels his way into ultimately upholding the walls and ceiling, even if he has to redefine some pillars instead of demolish them, appealing to mystery if he must, which is sure to make some onlookers cringe with suspicion.
But boy it's fairly convincing, and reminds me of why I read Leithart---do I truly want to believe all he believes, or do I just want to think how he thinks? Do I really expect the latter without the former?
Is he simply.. too Catholic?
Or just maybe, he's my favorite Teacher-saint of the 2000s.
Leithart argues that the view of 'baptism as an external expression of an internal reality' is an unbiblical mode of thought, and then proceeds to demonstrate that when the New Testament speaks of baptism, it really means baptism (a water rite), and not metaphorically. Leithart then shows that the NT attributes "virtually unbelievable powers to baptism" but without denying 'justification by faith' or otherwise suggesting that there is magic in baptismal water or that "all who get simply get wet are eternally and invariably saved". While many throughout history argue "water baptism _signifies_ the transition from death to life in Christ, but does not _effect_ it," Peter argues that the New Testament, including Paul (here in Romans 6), uses either instrumental language of effecting when speaking of Baptism, or language of "through" or "in which" (or linking: "you were washed, sanctified, justified") when speaking of its relation to new life, the forgiveness of sins, and canceled debt.
All who are baptized, therefore, are brought into the Body of Christ, and therefore are regenerate, new creations.
What?
Here he disagrees with the 'visible/invisible church' Reformed tradition of thought, preferring to redefine these categories as historical/eschatological. The 'historical church is now, and later becomes, the eschatological church'. The historical church, with all its true and false sons in history, _is_ the Body of Christ. There is no invisible church of 'true believers' underneath it.
So,
1.Baptism admits the baptized into the church.
2. The church is the body of Christ.
3. Therefore baptism admits the baptized to the body of Christ
Which brings Leithart to his final controversial claim: apostasy should be spelled with a capital 'A'. Baptism charges the baptized to keep faith and some will fail to do it, as the NT writers warned. These are branches that will be cut from the Vine and burned. It is Saul all over again, who once truly had the Spirit but died Spirit-less.
Leithart obviously pounces on the opportunity to dismantle the notion that baptism is an external 'symbol' that doesn't really do anything to the 'inner man' underneath the wet body that emerges from the baptismal. Baptism is a rite, and rites accomplish what they signify. A marriage ceremony takes a bachelor and makes him a husband. An inauguration takes a citizen and makes him the President. There isn't a '(more true) inner self who is not the President' inside the President. Just the same, rites do not recognize a status that already exists, they place a person in a new status.
In other words, baptism is not a sign or symbol, it is not external; it is a rite, and it is effecting. It admits the baptized fully into Christ.
And he continues this line of argument when opposing the traditional Reformed argument that 'those who fall away were never really regenerate, never truly saved and then lost--they may have tasted but they never possessed'. For Leithart, since those who emerge from Baptism are brought into the church, and because the visible/historical church is in fact the Body of Christ, the baptized are regenerate new-creation-believers. The Bible recognizes them as such.
And very sadly, these saved ones can truly be lost to apostasy. Peter then takes on the burden of attempting to prove this without denying eternal election (before the foundation of the world) and the perseverance of the saints. One of the more obvious advantages of this stance is its ability to take apparent passages of apostasy head on and at face value. It can more calmly relate to and diaoglue with Hebrews 6 and 10 and similar passages through the gospels and epistles which speak of apostasy in startling ways---ways that make traditional TULIP-holders so squirmy.
Things get hairy. It's difficult to feel thoroughly comforted and encouraged when walking away from the totality of Peter's argument. The loss of 'true' believers is hard if not impossible to stomach: though to accurately represent Peter, we must qualify that the Lord eternally reprobated/damned 'George' (for example) from before the foundation of the world, though George became baptized in 1993---which changed God's relation to George---George residing in the Body for several years before surrendering the faith in 2013 and running off with his secretary, at which point God's relation to George changed again.
Put another way: God eternally saves and reprobates from before the world, but God chooses to relate to his creatures 'in time'. Man's destiny with God unfolds within the space of time and relation, and therefore 'can and does change over time'. The destiny is worked out through the story of that man in the story of the world. This is how one is to uphold eternal election while also upholding apostasy.
So how can anyone be assured? Well, because God tells you in Romans 8: Nothing shall seperate us.
But how can I know I'm in the "us"? Well, God says he will not lose you, and he won't, because he says so. But if you insist to wrestle with assurance on strictly existential planes, says Peter, it's ultimately mysterious. It's a Romans 9 appeal: God hardens, God has mercy, there is inscrutable design unfolding here.
It has a flavor of mathematics and mystery, and feels foreign on the evangelical tongue. With baptism so effectual, the chips also stack very high on Apostasy's side of the poker table. Seeing "justification by faith alone" operate _within_ such a 'high view' of both efficacy and apostasy also disturbs our more modern enthronement of 'free, autonomous consent' as highest religious expression.
Indeed, it's an interesting little table Peter seems to have found in this corner of this barroom, and there really are toasts to Mystery when the glasses are held up high.
Yet the lighting is surprisingly inviting here, the jukebox isn't too loud and the drinks are strong and the company is good. The book is maturely thought and articulated, and much more convincing than I expected.
The book is about baptism efficacy, and Peter is his usual provocative self, always trying to be more Scriptural than tradition itself, and thus recovering a long-buried Tradition under tradition. He seemingly takes a wrecking ball to a few load-bearing pillars of Calvinism (justification by faith alone, eternal election, visible/invisible church, perseverance of the saints) and yet weasels his way into ultimately upholding the walls and ceiling, even if he has to redefine some pillars instead of demolish them, appealing to mystery if he must, which is sure to make some onlookers cringe with suspicion.
But boy it's fairly convincing, and reminds me of why I read Leithart---do I truly want to believe all he believes, or do I just want to think how he thinks? Do I really expect the latter without the former?
Is he simply.. too Catholic?
Or just maybe, he's my favorite Teacher-saint of the 2000s.
Leithart argues that the view of 'baptism as an external expression of an internal reality' is an unbiblical mode of thought, and then proceeds to demonstrate that when the New Testament speaks of baptism, it really means baptism (a water rite), and not metaphorically. Leithart then shows that the NT attributes "virtually unbelievable powers to baptism" but without denying 'justification by faith' or otherwise suggesting that there is magic in baptismal water or that "all who get simply get wet are eternally and invariably saved". While many throughout history argue "water baptism _signifies_ the transition from death to life in Christ, but does not _effect_ it," Peter argues that the New Testament, including Paul (here in Romans 6), uses either instrumental language of effecting when speaking of Baptism, or language of "through" or "in which" (or linking: "you were washed, sanctified, justified") when speaking of its relation to new life, the forgiveness of sins, and canceled debt.
All who are baptized, therefore, are brought into the Body of Christ, and therefore are regenerate, new creations.
What?
Here he disagrees with the 'visible/invisible church' Reformed tradition of thought, preferring to redefine these categories as historical/eschatological. The 'historical church is now, and later becomes, the eschatological church'. The historical church, with all its true and false sons in history, _is_ the Body of Christ. There is no invisible church of 'true believers' underneath it.
So,
1.Baptism admits the baptized into the church.
2. The church is the body of Christ.
3. Therefore baptism admits the baptized to the body of Christ
Which brings Leithart to his final controversial claim: apostasy should be spelled with a capital 'A'. Baptism charges the baptized to keep faith and some will fail to do it, as the NT writers warned. These are branches that will be cut from the Vine and burned. It is Saul all over again, who once truly had the Spirit but died Spirit-less.
Leithart obviously pounces on the opportunity to dismantle the notion that baptism is an external 'symbol' that doesn't really do anything to the 'inner man' underneath the wet body that emerges from the baptismal. Baptism is a rite, and rites accomplish what they signify. A marriage ceremony takes a bachelor and makes him a husband. An inauguration takes a citizen and makes him the President. There isn't a '(more true) inner self who is not the President' inside the President. Just the same, rites do not recognize a status that already exists, they place a person in a new status.
In other words, baptism is not a sign or symbol, it is not external; it is a rite, and it is effecting. It admits the baptized fully into Christ.
And he continues this line of argument when opposing the traditional Reformed argument that 'those who fall away were never really regenerate, never truly saved and then lost--they may have tasted but they never possessed'. For Leithart, since those who emerge from Baptism are brought into the church, and because the visible/historical church is in fact the Body of Christ, the baptized are regenerate new-creation-believers. The Bible recognizes them as such.
And very sadly, these saved ones can truly be lost to apostasy. Peter then takes on the burden of attempting to prove this without denying eternal election (before the foundation of the world) and the perseverance of the saints. One of the more obvious advantages of this stance is its ability to take apparent passages of apostasy head on and at face value. It can more calmly relate to and diaoglue with Hebrews 6 and 10 and similar passages through the gospels and epistles which speak of apostasy in startling ways---ways that make traditional TULIP-holders so squirmy.
Things get hairy. It's difficult to feel thoroughly comforted and encouraged when walking away from the totality of Peter's argument. The loss of 'true' believers is hard if not impossible to stomach: though to accurately represent Peter, we must qualify that the Lord eternally reprobated/damned 'George' (for example) from before the foundation of the world, though George became baptized in 1993---which changed God's relation to George---George residing in the Body for several years before surrendering the faith in 2013 and running off with his secretary, at which point God's relation to George changed again.
Put another way: God eternally saves and reprobates from before the world, but God chooses to relate to his creatures 'in time'. Man's destiny with God unfolds within the space of time and relation, and therefore 'can and does change over time'. The destiny is worked out through the story of that man in the story of the world. This is how one is to uphold eternal election while also upholding apostasy.
So how can anyone be assured? Well, because God tells you in Romans 8: Nothing shall seperate us.
But how can I know I'm in the "us"? Well, God says he will not lose you, and he won't, because he says so. But if you insist to wrestle with assurance on strictly existential planes, says Peter, it's ultimately mysterious. It's a Romans 9 appeal: God hardens, God has mercy, there is inscrutable design unfolding here.
It has a flavor of mathematics and mystery, and feels foreign on the evangelical tongue. With baptism so effectual, the chips also stack very high on Apostasy's side of the poker table. Seeing "justification by faith alone" operate _within_ such a 'high view' of both efficacy and apostasy also disturbs our more modern enthronement of 'free, autonomous consent' as highest religious expression.
Indeed, it's an interesting little table Peter seems to have found in this corner of this barroom, and there really are toasts to Mystery when the glasses are held up high.
Yet the lighting is surprisingly inviting here, the jukebox isn't too loud and the drinks are strong and the company is good. The book is maturely thought and articulated, and much more convincing than I expected.
July 7, 2025
Equally parts helpful and frustrating.
Leithart wants to take back the idea that Baptism, really, truly, and efficaciously, does something. Not because of some hidden power in water, but because of the sacrament itself. It is not merely symbolic in the way our Baptist friends view it, but it is more than a covenant sign the way we Presbyterians typically view it - in that it objectively adds someone (regardless of their faith) into the covenant of Christ. Like us Presbyterians, Leithart agrees that Baptism is not a guarantee of salvation but it does put them under covenant curses and blessings, marking them out as truly Christians. Baptism applies something to the partaker which they did not have prior, which is a new identity. They are now really, truly, geographically, historically, and all the other terms you may choose, a Christian.
This means, alongside other things, that Leithart is arguing that union with Christ can be covenantal but not necessarily salvific. This is a common claim from those who hold to Federal Vision, and it elicits the common response of the lack of assurance of faith and perseverance of faith. Additionally, it seems to break the Golden chain of redemption down, leaving room for a form of apostasy that is more akin to Baptist’s warnings against impossibilities such as the warning passages in Hebrews.
Another hard to swallow pill is the efficacy that Baptism is given, when he states that baptism always confers union with Christ the distinction between the sign and the thing signified are heavily blurred (WCF 28.5 rejects this notion, Grace is not tied to the moment of baptism and not all baptized are regenerate).
All that being said, we in the Reformed world tend to underestimate the power and significance of Baptism. Leithart asks some good questions here that push us back towards a real, robust, hearty view of Baptism, but there are times that he pushes it off the docks completely.
Leithart wants to take back the idea that Baptism, really, truly, and efficaciously, does something. Not because of some hidden power in water, but because of the sacrament itself. It is not merely symbolic in the way our Baptist friends view it, but it is more than a covenant sign the way we Presbyterians typically view it - in that it objectively adds someone (regardless of their faith) into the covenant of Christ. Like us Presbyterians, Leithart agrees that Baptism is not a guarantee of salvation but it does put them under covenant curses and blessings, marking them out as truly Christians. Baptism applies something to the partaker which they did not have prior, which is a new identity. They are now really, truly, geographically, historically, and all the other terms you may choose, a Christian.
This means, alongside other things, that Leithart is arguing that union with Christ can be covenantal but not necessarily salvific. This is a common claim from those who hold to Federal Vision, and it elicits the common response of the lack of assurance of faith and perseverance of faith. Additionally, it seems to break the Golden chain of redemption down, leaving room for a form of apostasy that is more akin to Baptist’s warnings against impossibilities such as the warning passages in Hebrews.
Another hard to swallow pill is the efficacy that Baptism is given, when he states that baptism always confers union with Christ the distinction between the sign and the thing signified are heavily blurred (WCF 28.5 rejects this notion, Grace is not tied to the moment of baptism and not all baptized are regenerate).
All that being said, we in the Reformed world tend to underestimate the power and significance of Baptism. Leithart asks some good questions here that push us back towards a real, robust, hearty view of Baptism, but there are times that he pushes it off the docks completely.
October 14, 2022
There are some great questions in this work, and certainly many helpful points, especially regarding baptismal efficacy. However, I believe Leithart too easily casts aside classic reformed terminology and categories. For the author, biblical theology is superior to systematic (and particularly reformed scholastic) theology. I would rather see him (and biblical theology) enrich the heritage, not dismiss it in favor of a language that can create as much confusion as it gives insight. This problem is particularly evident around the subject of the new birth.
From my own reading of the continental reformers and puritan divines, I can (and did) develop a truly rich understanding of baptism. This book does not really add to that. (The 16th Century Irish Catechism starts with "What is your name?" After the answer, it asks, "Who gave you this name?" In answer is this: "My father and mother in my baptism, wherein I was made a member of Christ, a child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven.")
From my own reading of the continental reformers and puritan divines, I can (and did) develop a truly rich understanding of baptism. This book does not really add to that. (The 16th Century Irish Catechism starts with "What is your name?" After the answer, it asks, "Who gave you this name?" In answer is this: "My father and mother in my baptism, wherein I was made a member of Christ, a child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven.")
July 10, 2025
Impressionantemente bom!
May 8, 2009
Own.
Drawing on Trinitarian theology and not shying away from hard Scripture (which almost all the passages about baptism are), Leithart expands the concept of a relationship with Christ beyond election. He posits that God initiates relationships, even through the Holy Spirit, with those He does not ultimately save; Saul and Judas are primary examples. Baptism, he demonstrates, is the effective-through-the-Holy-Spirit initiation rite into a relationship with God and into the Church, Christ's bride and body. Apostasy happens because God does not grant saving faith to all those He brings into His Body, which Leithart argues is the visible and not the invisible church (hence branches that are really in the vine will be pruned, and hence seeds really sprout only to grow for a short time). It is all from God, the way He rules the world, the way He tells and weaves the story, not from our response or work or initiative.
I was very grateful that this was Leithart's "common man" style as he employs in his literature guides, and not his academic style. He made the path of his thinking very clear and easy to follow. There is only one instance of neologism, and for that I was thankful.
This book is available in its entirety on Google Books, thanks to Canon Press, and is a short and easy read. It would be a good book to read if you have heard slander of Federal Vision's supposed sacerdotalism.
Drawing on Trinitarian theology and not shying away from hard Scripture (which almost all the passages about baptism are), Leithart expands the concept of a relationship with Christ beyond election. He posits that God initiates relationships, even through the Holy Spirit, with those He does not ultimately save; Saul and Judas are primary examples. Baptism, he demonstrates, is the effective-through-the-Holy-Spirit initiation rite into a relationship with God and into the Church, Christ's bride and body. Apostasy happens because God does not grant saving faith to all those He brings into His Body, which Leithart argues is the visible and not the invisible church (hence branches that are really in the vine will be pruned, and hence seeds really sprout only to grow for a short time). It is all from God, the way He rules the world, the way He tells and weaves the story, not from our response or work or initiative.
I was very grateful that this was Leithart's "common man" style as he employs in his literature guides, and not his academic style. He made the path of his thinking very clear and easy to follow. There is only one instance of neologism, and for that I was thankful.
This book is available in its entirety on Google Books, thanks to Canon Press, and is a short and easy read. It would be a good book to read if you have heard slander of Federal Vision's supposed sacerdotalism.
October 7, 2021
I had no idea what I was getting myself into with this one. God's sovereignty, response within time, baptism, the body of Christ, natural and spiritual, invisible and visible church, election, apostasy, assurance, Sociology, I could go on.
Really, really good book on baptism. Peter addresses a lot of questions I didn't realize I had and provides frameworks for dealing with theological presuppositions that have been keeping me from saying what the Bible plainly says.
Worth the read, even it's just to be exposed to a different way of looking at things.
Really, really good book on baptism. Peter addresses a lot of questions I didn't realize I had and provides frameworks for dealing with theological presuppositions that have been keeping me from saying what the Bible plainly says.
Worth the read, even it's just to be exposed to a different way of looking at things.
June 23, 2023
“Keep faith with the king, and all will be well.”
March 17, 2022
This is well written and although there are not many chapters in this book, it contained a diverse and expansive array of theology, much more then I was anticipating. Mentally, I was not ready for what this book entailed. I thought I was going to read a book about credo versus paedo baptist views and that subject really wasn’t debated until the appendix. Instead, this book spoke on topics of God’s elect, the visible and invisible church, the historical versus the eschatological church body, losing salvation, the old and new Jerusalem and much more, often referring to the reformation theology and quoting the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Confession. Although I was pleasantly surprised at the material that is written in this book, I will have to give it another read to fully absorb and digest all that this book has to offer.
September 21, 2012
For me, this book, like Leithart's writings generally, was both a hit and a miss. Let's take it from the top.
Chapter one, "Starting before the Beginning," was intended to clear "enough ground to move ahead" to discuss the biblical texts about baptism. This chapter seemed a bit choppy, as Leithart's hitting on different philosophical, ontological, and theological topics. It was intended to be controversial with section headings such as, "Why Sacraments Are Not Signs," "Why Sacraments Are Not Means of Grace," and "Why Sacraments Are Not Symbols." That said, I found the concept of Sacraments as rituals to be compelling and helpful. Sacraments can, however, be signs, means of grace, symbols, AND rituals.
Chapter two, "'Baptism' is Baptism," was very fine. Leithart is quite conversant with many exegetes. I think he shows with some conclusiveness that the great majority of the time the NT uses the term "baptism," it means regular water baptism. This is important point. Since the NT attributes such impressive things to baptism, many folks want to make "baptism" mean "spiritual" baptism. Leithart shows that this defensive tactic is not generally exegetically justifiable.
Chapter three, "The 'Body of Christ' is the Body of Christ," argues that when the NT refers to the church (or the Body of Christ), it generally means the historical, visible church. This chapter is a polemic against those who would want to import the "invisible" concept of the church into the NT text. Just like chapter two, the visible church is not ALWAYS in view in the NT, but it is usually in view. Again, Leithart examines many texts and interacts with various interpreters of those texts.
Chapter four, "Apostasy Happens," is where Leithart muddies the waters a bit. First, he pulls together quite a handful of warning passages against apostasy to show that apostasy does indeed happen. So far, so good. The problem comes when Leithart seems basically unwilling to grant that there is any ontological or spiritual difference between the temporary believer who falls away and ends up in hell, and the believer who, by God's grace, perseveres and ends up in heaven. He seems to want to hide in the grayness of the vast varieties of Christian experience, but he will not put his finger on a *real* spiritual difference between the one of perseveres and the who apostatizes. This is a problem. The Bible says that those who apostatize "were not of us" (1 John 2:19). They went out from us, but were not of us. If they had been of us, they would have remained with us. Thus, in one respect, the apostates were are part of us - they were baptized into the same body of Christ (the historic Christian church, the body and bride of Christ). They were sharers and partakers of the covenant mercies of Christ, just like us. BUT they went out from us, thus manifesting that they were not of us. This means that they were and are missing something that is essential to being one of "us." This is the thing that Leithart can't or won't put his finger on. I suspect that part of the problem is that Leithart sees "regeneration" almost exclusively in terms of the life of the age to come in general (not individual) terms. The "regeneration" is the new age in Christ Jesus (Mt 19:28). This, without doubt, is true. What's more, this sense of "regeneration" is almost entirely missing from most Evangelical thought, and is how the NT uses that specific word. It is not, however, all that Bible says about new life or being born from above. Individual people are born from above. Dead men are made alive together with Christ. There is a spiritual and ontological transformation that occurs in a person, when they are taken out of the kingdom of darkness and transferred into the Kingdom of God's dear Son. There IS an individual component in "regeneration" that Leithart seems quite slow to acknowledge. I think this slowness accounts for his unwillingness to put his finger on an actual difference between those who temporarily believe and those who believe unto salvation. The latter has been born from above, while the former simply has not. Both are *really* baptized into the body of Christ, baptized into the regeneration. Both *really* share in the covenant. The apostate shares in all of that grace unto his further condemnation, while the faithful one shares unto glorious salvation. The difference between those two, as they sit next to each other on the pew (before the one apostatizes - assuming that his apostasy is final), is that one has been born again and the other has not. Now, WE cannot see the difference as they sit there. WE must treat both men as covenant members and hold them to the standards of the covenant. But just because WE cannot tell the difference doesn't mean that there is no difference. The whole of it runs back to God's eternal electing love. The Lord knows who are his, and let everyone who names the name of the Lord depart from iniquity.
Chapter five, "A Tale of Three Servants," is a small parable illustrating Leithart's points above.
The Appendix, "The Sociology of Infant Baptism," was simply excellent. It was a penetrating look into the realities of covenant nurture. It gives us a view of what infant baptism looks like with feet. Covenant baptism doesn't just spin out there as an IDEA; it is the way of Christian life and nurture.
In a word, the book was good. Leithart mentioned in the preface that this book was hurried and unpolished. That seems quite true. Even so, it's a useful addition to the conversation about baptism. I'm glad that I read it. The appendix alone is worth the price of the book.
Chapter one, "Starting before the Beginning," was intended to clear "enough ground to move ahead" to discuss the biblical texts about baptism. This chapter seemed a bit choppy, as Leithart's hitting on different philosophical, ontological, and theological topics. It was intended to be controversial with section headings such as, "Why Sacraments Are Not Signs," "Why Sacraments Are Not Means of Grace," and "Why Sacraments Are Not Symbols." That said, I found the concept of Sacraments as rituals to be compelling and helpful. Sacraments can, however, be signs, means of grace, symbols, AND rituals.
Chapter two, "'Baptism' is Baptism," was very fine. Leithart is quite conversant with many exegetes. I think he shows with some conclusiveness that the great majority of the time the NT uses the term "baptism," it means regular water baptism. This is important point. Since the NT attributes such impressive things to baptism, many folks want to make "baptism" mean "spiritual" baptism. Leithart shows that this defensive tactic is not generally exegetically justifiable.
Chapter three, "The 'Body of Christ' is the Body of Christ," argues that when the NT refers to the church (or the Body of Christ), it generally means the historical, visible church. This chapter is a polemic against those who would want to import the "invisible" concept of the church into the NT text. Just like chapter two, the visible church is not ALWAYS in view in the NT, but it is usually in view. Again, Leithart examines many texts and interacts with various interpreters of those texts.
Chapter four, "Apostasy Happens," is where Leithart muddies the waters a bit. First, he pulls together quite a handful of warning passages against apostasy to show that apostasy does indeed happen. So far, so good. The problem comes when Leithart seems basically unwilling to grant that there is any ontological or spiritual difference between the temporary believer who falls away and ends up in hell, and the believer who, by God's grace, perseveres and ends up in heaven. He seems to want to hide in the grayness of the vast varieties of Christian experience, but he will not put his finger on a *real* spiritual difference between the one of perseveres and the who apostatizes. This is a problem. The Bible says that those who apostatize "were not of us" (1 John 2:19). They went out from us, but were not of us. If they had been of us, they would have remained with us. Thus, in one respect, the apostates were are part of us - they were baptized into the same body of Christ (the historic Christian church, the body and bride of Christ). They were sharers and partakers of the covenant mercies of Christ, just like us. BUT they went out from us, thus manifesting that they were not of us. This means that they were and are missing something that is essential to being one of "us." This is the thing that Leithart can't or won't put his finger on. I suspect that part of the problem is that Leithart sees "regeneration" almost exclusively in terms of the life of the age to come in general (not individual) terms. The "regeneration" is the new age in Christ Jesus (Mt 19:28). This, without doubt, is true. What's more, this sense of "regeneration" is almost entirely missing from most Evangelical thought, and is how the NT uses that specific word. It is not, however, all that Bible says about new life or being born from above. Individual people are born from above. Dead men are made alive together with Christ. There is a spiritual and ontological transformation that occurs in a person, when they are taken out of the kingdom of darkness and transferred into the Kingdom of God's dear Son. There IS an individual component in "regeneration" that Leithart seems quite slow to acknowledge. I think this slowness accounts for his unwillingness to put his finger on an actual difference between those who temporarily believe and those who believe unto salvation. The latter has been born from above, while the former simply has not. Both are *really* baptized into the body of Christ, baptized into the regeneration. Both *really* share in the covenant. The apostate shares in all of that grace unto his further condemnation, while the faithful one shares unto glorious salvation. The difference between those two, as they sit next to each other on the pew (before the one apostatizes - assuming that his apostasy is final), is that one has been born again and the other has not. Now, WE cannot see the difference as they sit there. WE must treat both men as covenant members and hold them to the standards of the covenant. But just because WE cannot tell the difference doesn't mean that there is no difference. The whole of it runs back to God's eternal electing love. The Lord knows who are his, and let everyone who names the name of the Lord depart from iniquity.
Chapter five, "A Tale of Three Servants," is a small parable illustrating Leithart's points above.
The Appendix, "The Sociology of Infant Baptism," was simply excellent. It was a penetrating look into the realities of covenant nurture. It gives us a view of what infant baptism looks like with feet. Covenant baptism doesn't just spin out there as an IDEA; it is the way of Christian life and nurture.
In a word, the book was good. Leithart mentioned in the preface that this book was hurried and unpolished. That seems quite true. Even so, it's a useful addition to the conversation about baptism. I'm glad that I read it. The appendix alone is worth the price of the book.
Read
August 13, 2023Might come back after podcasting with Matt and review more fully.
Leithart is great, as always. My favorite part is his explanation of grace as visible not invisible: baptism is a grace, rather than a means of grace. The bread and wine are grace, rather than a funnel for God to pour a mystical spiritual liquid called "grace" on us.
The sociology argument for paedobaptism is compelling, although I had to laugh when he says that credobaptism will inevitably lead to bad practice, except when it doesn't because they are inconsistent credobaptists, and the bad practice that could result from paedobaptism is not an inherent flaw.
Leithart is great, as always. My favorite part is his explanation of grace as visible not invisible: baptism is a grace, rather than a means of grace. The bread and wine are grace, rather than a funnel for God to pour a mystical spiritual liquid called "grace" on us.
The sociology argument for paedobaptism is compelling, although I had to laugh when he says that credobaptism will inevitably lead to bad practice, except when it doesn't because they are inconsistent credobaptists, and the bad practice that could result from paedobaptism is not an inherent flaw.
June 11, 2025
Bold. Leithart unashamedly challenges sacramental misconceptions borne in the air we breathe. And he does it very effectively. I found his treatment of apostasy extremely helpful, probably the best I’ve read yet. Leithart definitely seems to wade deeper into the FV stream than the Moscow folks.
There’s this joke about Zwinglians and Calvinists, I think it goes something like this…
Zwinglian: “the sacraments are a means of grace…”
Cage stage(beware) Calvinist: “Die, heretic.”
Really though, it should be obvious that the sacraments ARE grace and not merely a means.
Baptism means baptism.
(to be reviewed in greater detail once I reread this)
There’s this joke about Zwinglians and Calvinists, I think it goes something like this…
Zwinglian: “the sacraments are a means of grace…”
Cage stage(beware) Calvinist: “Die, heretic.”
Really though, it should be obvious that the sacraments ARE grace and not merely a means.
Baptism means baptism.
(to be reviewed in greater detail once I reread this)
November 21, 2024
This was a great book in terms of challenging my baptismal understandings. Clearly the Bible teaches that baptism is more than a symbol, but I never was taught anything about what baptism actually “does” until the last several years when we started attending a reformed church.
This book took me some time work through as the arguments are deep and I found myself having to read sections multiple times since I really wanted to understand what the author was saying.
This book took me some time work through as the arguments are deep and I found myself having to read sections multiple times since I really wanted to understand what the author was saying.
February 15, 2025
I’ve always found Leithart to be very thoughtful, and this book is no exception, but I found it to be a little bit more of a slog. I think the main difficulty for me is that I’m probably not his intended audience. He’s weighing in on debates that mostly pertain to his confessionally-Reformed slice of the Christian world. For that reason, I felt beyond his reach at times, like I’m too baptistic for his arguments to really hit home. But that’s not his problem, and it’s not a criticism of the book — just a personal reflection.
April 6, 2025
Lot to chew on here. Much seems right; some seems not. A few stolen bases on sacramental theology. Gotta give the man credit: he wrote the most straightforward explanation of his views on baptism that I’ve read thus far.
May 15, 2025
Wonderful book! Provides a clear and compelling case for covenantal infant baptism and defends it as well as I have ever seen done. The appendix is particularly wonderful to my mind, be sure not to skip that.
February 11, 2018
Everyone should read! Very short and accessible.
June 18, 2019
A solid read. Very helpful as one delves into the issue of infant baptism.
October 4, 2021
Recommend for an overview of modernity, the self, symbolism, and also for that appendix which is a shorter version of the book as a whole.
March 24, 2009
Leithart is the literary equivalent of a prize-fighter. He flies like a butterfly and stings like a bee. He demolishes others arguments with grace and skillfulness. All that to say, he does a great job once again in the Baptized Body. The only thing I would say about this book, is that I think it should be read after his other book, Against Christianity.
January 9, 2012
My second time through this excellent little book. Leithart cuts through all sorts of theologies that minimize the importance and effects of baptism. He only comes up short on apostasy where a good walk through 1 John would have made for a better formulation of assurance of salvation. Still, this book ought to help the church understand this great gift in its New Testament fullness.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 102 reviews