Green Baggins

The next point at issue here is whether the SJC was wrong in attributing to TE Leithart confusion of justification and sanctification. TE Rayburn argues that TE Leithart is not doing this, but is merely positing a joining of justification and definitive sanctification. Definitive sanctification here is defined by John Murray. TE Rayburn’s point is that TE Leithart was not confusing progressive sanctification and justification, but was merely seeking to combine definitive sanctification and justification under one act. That TE Leithart does the latter can hardly be denied. It is his explicit program in his article “Judge Me, O God” in The Federal Vision. On this article, see my critique of TE Leithart here.  With regard to the SJC’s point, one could definitely wish that the distinction between the two aspects of sanctification had been clarified a bit more in their critique. However, the SJC’s point is still valid, when one digs a little deeper.

The first point to realize here is that John Murray, in his explication of definitive sanctification, did not consider it as completely separated from progressive sanctification. Note that he says, “It would be, therefore, a deflection from biblical patterns of language and conception to think of sanctification exclusively in terms of a progressive work.” This indicates that under the rubric of sanctification, one can consider two aspects: definitive and progressive. In fact, as WTS professors typically formulate it, the definitive and progressive aspects of sanctification can be analogous to the already/not yet aspects of salvation that one finds elsewhere in the ordo salutis. Definitive is already, progressive is not yet. The point here is that definitive and progressive cannot be so easily severed. And they would have to be severed completely for there to be no confusion on the issue of justification and sanctification. One may simply ask this question: on what biblical basis would TE Leithart and/or TE Rayburn yank definitive sanctification away from its organically connected progressive other half? Presumably, TE’s Rayburn and Leithart both would agree that progressive sanctification cannot be included under the rubric of justification, which is explicitly Rome’s position. But on what basis can one exclude progressive sanctification from justification if one has already included definitive sanctification?

The second point to realize here is that John Murray never included definitive sanctification under the rubric of justification. The language of “justified from sin” was not speaking at all about justification, according to Murray. He did not argue as TE Leithart does, in other words. As I argued in response to Leithart, and as the WTJ also noted (70.1, Spring 2008, pp. 105-110), you cannot simply add up all the occurrences of the word “justification” and say that the doctrine of justification has to include all the uses of that word. It is odd here, because I feel like I’m arguing like the FV does. It is usually the FV who is claiming that words are used in a broader sense in Scripture than they are in the confessions. Here, TE Leithart is arguing the reverse: according to him, our doctrine of justification has to account for all the uses of the word “justify” in Scripture.

In this post, I will deal with TE Rayburn’s claims concerning a quotation of Leithart that TE Rayburn feels was dealt with unfairly. The quotation is Leithart, “The baptized are implanted into Christ’s body, and in Him share in all that he has to give.” The quotation is from page 78 of The Baptized Body.

A word here on the nature of published materials. One would assume that a Ph.D. of Leithart’s caliber would have his work peer-reviewed, and not just by people who agree with him. If this statement were in a more occasional document, TE Rayburn (and TE Leithart!) would have some occasion to gripe about the quotation. However, the quotation comes from a published work of TE Leithart. If the book doesn’t publish what TE Leithart means, that is TE Leithart’s fault, not the SJC’s. It is the responsibility of the author to prevent any and all misunderstandings of his work when publishing a book. It is his responsibility to ensure that there is no other way to understand his published book than the meaning he intends. What’s more, there are several other quotations that say the same thing as the above quotation in The Baptized Body. For instance, take this statement from page 73:

The historical church, the visible church, is the bride of the Son and one flesh with Him, which Jesus treats as “His own body.” (paragraph break, LK) If this is true, then again we are left with some profound consequences for membership in the visible church. Baptism joins us to the church, and I have argued that the church is the body of Christ, not merely in some “honorific” or secondary sense, but in a real sense. 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. (emphasis mine)

The context of this statement is vital to understanding Leithart’s point. His main point here is that the visible church is the body of Christ in a real sense. In this section, he is not denying that the invisible church is the body of Christ, but he is asserting that the visible church is the body of Christ in a very real sense. In that context he makes the claim that members in this visible body of Christ “share in Jesus Christ,” and are “introduced into the Triune fellowship.” If anything, this is a much stronger statement than the one Leithart retracted. Would he retract this statement as well? Baptism into the visible church introduces a person into Triune fellowship, and gives them a share in Jesus Christ? It should be noted here the equivalency of expression: “share in Jesus Christ” is surely a significant overlap of meaning to “implanted into Christ’s body.” And it is not a huge stretch to conclude that “share in all that He has to give” is very similar in meaning (or at least has a huge overlap, given, for instance, Ralph Smith’s definitions of covenant fellowship with the Trinity) to “introduced into the Triune fellowship.”

Both of these statements in The Baptized Body, in turn, match up quite nicely with the Joint Federal Vision Statement, in the section on baptism:

We affirm that God formally unites a person to Christ and to His covenant people through baptism into the triune Name, and that this baptism obligates such a one to lifelong covenant loyalty to the triune God, each baptized person repenting of his sins and trusting in Christ alone for his salvation. Baptism formally engrafts a person into the Church, which means that baptism is into the Regeneration, that time when the Son of Man sits upon His glorious throne (Matt. 19:28).

One could wonder what the term “formally” means here, but the idea is substantially the same as what Leithart has professed, and his name is attached to the document. I can only conclude at this juncture that, despite TE Leithart’s retraction of a statement in a book, this is in fact what he believes, since it is confirmed elsewhere in the same book, and in the Joint Statement.

The first claim that TE Rayburn makes concerns the makeup of the panel of the SJC that was appointed to hear the PNW case. I have emailed RE Duncan. I am not at liberty to divulge the details of that email, but I am satisfied that the makeup of the committee was not rigged to ensure a particular result. Notice that TE Rayburn does not come out and say that it was rigged. He more asks the question of whether it was above reproach. Certainly, one can agree with TE Rayburn that the conduct of a juridical body in such a high-profile case ought to be above reproach. One can also wonder whether, in such high-profile cases, it would behove TE Rayburn to ensure that he knew the inner process of the SJC proceedings before making an innuendo public regarding its behavior. Why throw the question out there, if one is not aware of the entire proceedings? TE Rayburn’s comments could be viewed as an attempt to delegitimize the panel entirely. Now, I have been convinced that the ending makeup of the committee was not rigged. But since I am not aware of any members of the SJC who are favorable to the FV error, I really question whether the result would have been any different had there been a completely different makeup to the panel.

I will be responding in a series of blog posts to TE Robert Rayburn’s public reaction to the SJC decision regarding the Leithart case. I hope I will be more charitable to Rob Rayburn than Rob Rayburn was to the SJC. Rob Rayburn is undoubtedly a highly intelligent, highly accomplished theologian. Therefore, I will make it a point to say nothing on this blog that I would not be comfortable saying to him in person. But I do feel that the SJC needs to have someone speak up for it and answer some of the very serious things that TE Rayburn has said in his response to the decision.