Actually the Church of Rome recognizes Trinitarian baptism administered non Roman Catholic clerics. He officially came into communion with the Church of Rome when he was confirmed.
Peter Leithart - Opinion?
- Thread starter Anglicanorthodoxy
- Start date
- Status
Back to the OP question -- years ago I noticed in Leithart's book on Shakespeare that his "creative" or "insightful" interpretations weren't exactly faithful to the actual text under discussion. Seeing him fiddle with the meaning of Shakespeare in order to make his point, it made me lose all confidence that he would be rigorous in handling Scripture.
Anglicanorthodoxy
Puritan Board Freshman
I just read Leitharts article "Does Baptism Justify"
https://theopolisinstitute.com/does-baptism-justify/
He's not a Romanist, but he is most certainly NOT Reformed either. How anyone could see him as Reformed after reading this article just blows my mind.
I myself actually have a fairly "high" view of Baptism. One could say that I hold to a form of Baptismal Regeneration. My view is the same as the view held by Cornelius Burges. I believe that for the Elect, Baptism begins the process of regeneration. Justification is by faith alone. Note the difference between my view and Leitharts view. I say Baptism begins the process of regeneration, but ONLY for the ELECT, and that Justification is by faith alone. Leithart says that Baptism justifies. He does not limit its efficacy to the Elect, and says nothing about Sola Fide. He seems to be saying that Baptism justifies all who are baptized, and also says that one can fall away after this "justification" they get from Baptism. Seeing as he doesn't even mention how Sola Fide plays into his scheme, it would seem to me that his views would destroy the Reformed doctrines of Total Depravity and Perseverance of the Saints.
I'll admit that compared to most on here, I'd rightly be called a "High-Church Calvinist." I'm an Anglican, not realy a "Puritan" or a "TR" That being said, my views are nowhere near Leitharts. How can anyone see this guy as Reformed?
https://theopolisinstitute.com/does-baptism-justify/
He's not a Romanist, but he is most certainly NOT Reformed either. How anyone could see him as Reformed after reading this article just blows my mind.
I myself actually have a fairly "high" view of Baptism. One could say that I hold to a form of Baptismal Regeneration. My view is the same as the view held by Cornelius Burges. I believe that for the Elect, Baptism begins the process of regeneration. Justification is by faith alone. Note the difference between my view and Leitharts view. I say Baptism begins the process of regeneration, but ONLY for the ELECT, and that Justification is by faith alone. Leithart says that Baptism justifies. He does not limit its efficacy to the Elect, and says nothing about Sola Fide. He seems to be saying that Baptism justifies all who are baptized, and also says that one can fall away after this "justification" they get from Baptism. Seeing as he doesn't even mention how Sola Fide plays into his scheme, it would seem to me that his views would destroy the Reformed doctrines of Total Depravity and Perseverance of the Saints.
I'll admit that compared to most on here, I'd rightly be called a "High-Church Calvinist." I'm an Anglican, not realy a "Puritan" or a "TR" That being said, my views are nowhere near Leitharts. How can anyone see this guy as Reformed?
Clark-Tillian
Puritan Board Freshman
I say Baptism begins the process of regeneration...
Can you flesh that out a little bit, please?
Can you flesh that out a little bit, please?
Clark-Tillian
Puritan Board Freshman
From the RE website--the standard Article on Baptism
XXVII. Of Baptism.
Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or New-Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed; Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God.
The Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.
I really don't see anything here about the process of regeneration. I think I know what your driving at, but maybe stating imprecisely? Are you asserting what WCF 28 VI states?
VI. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time.
XXVII. Of Baptism.
Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or New-Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed; Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God.
The Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.
I really don't see anything here about the process of regeneration. I think I know what your driving at, but maybe stating imprecisely? Are you asserting what WCF 28 VI states?
VI. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time.
arapahoepark
Puritan Board Doctor
Perhaps you refer to seed faith?
Regeneration though is the work of the Holy Spirit towards those whoa re the elect in Christ, and is not dependent upon any rite or ordinance to have that work accomplished.
Does the rite place them into the visible or the invisible body of Christ then?
Anglicanorthodoxy
Puritan Board Freshman
For a clear Anglican view on Baptism, I'd recommend Bishop Ray Sutton's work
"Signed, Sealed, and Delivered: A Study of Holy Baptism"
M. F Sadlers work "The Second Adam & the New Birth" is also a good one.
Here's something shorter from Cranmer House
http://www.cranmerhouse.org/articles/TITUS_3_5.pdf
"Signed, Sealed, and Delivered: A Study of Holy Baptism"
M. F Sadlers work "The Second Adam & the New Birth" is also a good one.
Here's something shorter from Cranmer House
http://www.cranmerhouse.org/articles/TITUS_3_5.pdf
D
Deleted member 6112
Guest
I'd caution you against Ray Sutton. He helped develop the views that are now known as Federal Vision when he was at Westminster Presbyterian Church in Tyler, TX in the 80s.
Anglicanorthodoxy
Puritan Board Freshman
Well the FV is a Presbyterian issue, not necessarily an Anglican issue. I listened to a critique of the FV given by Dr. Guy Waters. His critique was a strong critique from a Westminster Standards/Presbyterian standpoint. The 39 Articles are a bit more broad than the Westminster Standards. To be clear, I'm as against the more extreme proponents of FV( Doug Wilson, Peter Leithart, and James Jordan), as all of you are. As an Anglican, there are some aspects of the FV I would not necessarily call heretical( I don't agree with everything he says by any means, but some of Rich Lusk's work does interest me)
D
Deleted member 6112
Guest
Lusk is Jordan's and Leithart's greatest student. He has appropriated their theology wholesale. I was involved with these guys for two years, and, trust me, Lusk is just a popularizer of their doctrine.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
And if there is a spectrum of who is most influenced by NT Wright, Lusk would be he. Believe it or not, Jordan and Leithart don't care that much about Wright one way or another. Leithart actually takes Wright to task in one book. Lusk, though, is an NT devotee.
- Status
