Monday, November 19, 2007

Proof-Text Perversions: 1 Corinthians 12:13 (part six)

What About Some History of 1 Corinthians 12:13?

In 1611, the King James translators translated 1 Corinthians 12:13:
For by one spirit are we all baptized into one bodie, whether wee bee Iewes or Gentiles, whether wee bee bond or free: and haue beene all made to drinke into one spirit.
Do you see their small "s" "spirit?" They didn't take the position of "Spirit baptism."

John Wycliffe (1330-1384) translated 1 Corinthians 12:13:

For in o spirit alle we ben baptisid `in to o bodi, ether Jewis, ether hethene, ether seruauntis, ether free; and alle we ben fillid with drink in o spirit.
It is difficult perhaps to understand Middle English, but you can see again that we have a small "s" "spirit. He didn't take the position of "Spirit baptism."

Not that I fully endorse him, but Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-211/216) gave 1 Corinthians 12:13 this reading in his Paedagogus:

For by one spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free, and we have all drunk of one cup."
Do you see the small "s" "spirit?" He didn't take the position of "Spirit baptism."

John T. Christian in his History of Baptists, writes:

In the second and third decades of the Reformation Simon Menno became the leader of the Baptists in the Netherlands. He was born in Friesland, in 1492, and died in Holstein, January 13, 1559. He was ordained a Roman Catholic priest; but he became a convert to the Baptist faith when, in 1531, Seike Feerks or Sicke Snyder was burnt at the stake. On his conversion he at once preached Jesus and soon became a conspicuous leader among the Baptists.
Simon Menno references 1 Corinthians 12:13 in these of his writings:

Moses believed the word of the Lord, and erected a serpent; Israel looked upon it and was healed, not through the virtue of the image, but through the power of the divine word, received by them through faith. In the same manner salvation is ascribed In scriptural baptism (doope) Mark 16:16; the forgiveness of sins, Acts 2:38; the putting on of Christ, Gal. 8:27, being dipped into (indoopinge) one body. 1 Cor. 12:13 (Menno, Wercken, 14).
Menno says, as you can see, that 1 Corinthians 12:13 means, "being dipped into one body."

So we can go a long ways back to see something other than the Protestant "Spirit baptism" position for 1 Corinthians 12:13. Where did the false view come from? I've said many times that the universal, invisible body concept originated with Augustine. That's what we're talking about here with Spirit baptism. However, Augustine highly respected Platonic philosophy like several of the patristics, including the aforementioned Clement of Alexandria, who is one of the first noticed to have brought in the invisible church concept. Chrysostom broadened the concept of the body, when he wrote in his Homily:

[T]he Church amongst you is a part of the Church existing every where and of the body which is made up of all the Churches: so that not only with yourselves alone, but also with the whole Church throughout the world, ye ought to be at peace, if at least ye be members of the whole body.
Chrysostom (349-407) was an archbishop of Eastern Catholicism in the imperial city of Constantinople. Of course, the whole universal church concept originated in Roman Catholicism. Augustine (354-430) popularized the invisible church concept in his well-known argument with the Donatists, a group of Bible-believers in Africa who challenged the orthodoxy of Catholicism. One of their major criticisms was the impurity of Romanism. The ecclesial and theological claims of the Donatists were that if the bishops and members were not pure, then there could be no church. Augustine developed the Catholic concept of an invisible church within the visible to combat their teaching. Augustine enjoyed and respected the Greek philosopher Plato and his concept of the higher reality of ideas, drawing his invisible church concept from this realm of the ideals.

People protecting an invisible church are warring for a concept not found in Scripture. It originated with Augustine, was passed down through Romanism, and then passed through the Reformers, who were former Catholics and lovers of the writings of Augustine. It continues today spread around through academia and through the graduates into churches. Augustine's invisible, catholic church will find it's reality in the one world church of the Antichrist.

The Damages of the False View of 1 Corinthians 12:13

I'm not going to expand on these bullet points, but each could be a few paragraphs. They are consequences of this eisogesis of 1 Corinthians 12:13.

  • Unfaithfulness to the Local Church

  • Loss of Genuine Separation

  • Loss of Purity

  • Dumbed Down Doctrine

  • Multiplying False Doctrines

  • Loss of Discernment

  • False View of Unity

  • Resource Draining Existence of Parachurch Organizations

  • Unscriptural Methods of Ministry

  • Misinterpretation of Scripture

  • Distrust in the Church
In my opinion, it is possible that no false interpretation of Scripture has caused more damage than this one.
A Recap

1 Corinthians 12:13 teaches the water baptism of the believer into the membership of the church. This corroborates Acts 2:41 where it says that those that gladly received His Word and were baptized were added to the church. Baptism portrays the unity between believers in Christ's assembly no matter what the ethnicity or socio-economic level.

26 comments:

Anonymous said...

Kent,

Tremendous series of articles! I am currently teaching in Sunday School "Biblical Ecclesiology." These articles have been right on target. Presently, I am debunking the errors surrounding Matt. 16:18, but will begin in about two weeks the errors of I Cor. 12:13 (thanks for the loaded gun)! One of the questions that came up in the class was "What is the damage of the Universal Church?" Your thoughts in this article were excellent and I had not articulated two of them, but will this Sunday! However, I think a MAJOR erroneous outgrowth of UC thinking is also Bibliology (I know your aware)! One's view of Ecclesiology affects his Bibliology! According to Matt. 28:20, I Tim. 3:15, Revelation 22 (et al.) the guarding of God's words is a local church matter ~ NOT the para-church college/seminary/"ministry." I know you weren't giving an exhaustive list, but one could include a faulty view of MOVEMENTS, or Catholic thinking that "bigger is better." Well, again these articles were such a breath of fresh air and I kept coming back looking for the next article! Thanks!

Steve Bates

Kent Brandenburg said...

I agree that if you destroy the container for truth, you lose the truth itself---your bibliology point. Thanks for the encouragement. Good to hear the good word about the Good Word.

James said...

I know of your blog due to the KJV issues, of which we are in agreement. But reading further and doing a search on 'invisible church' on your blog I have to say you are laboring under a wild non-understanding of the doctrine of the visible/invisible church as it was developed by the reformers. For instance you keep saying that it is Roman Catholic and the reformers just picked it up from the Roman Catholics when in fact that is dead exact opposite of the truth. The category in Reformed Theology is the essence of the church. For Roman Catholicism the essence of the church is external and visible. And even there they distinguish between the 'teaching church' and the 'learning, or hearing church.' They consider the 'teaching church' (made up of the clerical hierarchy RC's are so famous for) as the 'essence' of the church. Maybe I should have been capitalizing Church.

Roman Catholics hold that there is no salvation outside their external, visible Church.

For many reasons the Reformation reacted against this definition of the essence of the Church and saw the essence of the Church in the invisible and spiritual communion of the saints. This church includes believers of all historical ages and only believers, and it is in *this* Church that there is no salvation outside of it.

If you want a stark - in the midst of real spiritual warfare - presentation of both doctrines and just why believers hold to the one and not the other read the famous debate between John Calvin and the Roman Catholic Cardinal Sadoleto.

Kent Brandenburg said...

James,

Thanks for popping in here. I'm happy about your defense of the KJV.

What I say here is true about the invention of the "invisible church." I know that there was a gigantic debate over "invisible catholic" versus "visible catholic" during the Reformation, but back up over a 1000 years and you get the origination of both concepts and they both started in Roman Catholicism, just like I have chronicled here in my article.

Have you read the Augustine's debates with the Donatists? That is where the "invisible church" concept arose out of Augustine's platonism. Luther and Calvin also loved Augustine. It still is half-baked Catholicism. We should go to Scripture for our ecclesiology and avoid the trappings we see in the history of false doctrine.

Thanks for coming over James.

Kent Brandenburg said...

One more thing James. Without 1 Cor. 12:13 teaching "Spirit baptism," which it doesn't, we don't have a basis for an invisible church in Scripture. The exegetical basis for the "invisible church" is debunked.

James said...

You're being thrown off by the word 'invisible.' You're taking it to mean gnostic, Platonic, form/matter, spirit/flesh, etc. You're also thinking of the Roman Catholic distinction between the church triumphant and the church militant and mixing that in with the very different Reformation doctrine of the visible/invisible church (first found in Luther, or brought to light by Luther, because historically in the battle with the Christian-persecuting Roman Catholic Church such doctrine emerged, as many doctrines emerge in historical context).

I really can't do any better than to direct you to a good Reformed systematic theology such as Berkhof. Read Berkhof on the this particular doctrine and if you still disagree you will at least have a clear definition of what you are disagreeing with.

And when you understand what the reformers meant by visible/invisible church the prooftexts are myriad.

Here's the Westminster Confession of Faith, 25:

I. The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of Him that fills all in all.

II. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.

And, again, to really see the practical aspect of this biblical doctrine see the claims against Protestants made by the Roman Catholic church in the heat of the spiritual warfare of the Reformation.

I'll look over what I've written and find a concise way to present. But as stated the reformers were never talking of two churches, or any Platonic or Gnostic notions. You do have to realize that union with Christ is a mystical union though...

Kent Brandenburg said...

Thanks James. Your comment doesn't satisfy me as an answer to my question. I have read the WC, knew it contained invisible/Catholic and Berkhof is a reformed ST often used in 1st year seminary. We used Strong (20 years ago), but we were required to read Berkhof, so I'm familiar with what he believes.

What I am showing is that both the invisible and the Catholic concepts both were invented subsequent to the completion of the canon. I'm not hung up on "invisible." "Invisible" started being used by Augustine in response to the Donatists, and later a theology was developed in fitting with the extra-scriptural concept. Plato influenced Augustine and the reformers. I hope you can see this.

The appropriate terminology for all believers is soteriological, namele the "family of God" and the "kingdom of God." "Church," however, always refers to something local and visible, that is, an assembly, which is the meaning of term ekklesia.

James said...

I don't know if you are Reformed, or if you are a dispensationalist or hold to classical covenant theology, etc. (it matters on this point of doctrine), but since you referenced the reformers in particular in your posts and stated they had taken the doctrine of the visible/invisible church from Roman Catholicism it is relevant to mention a Berkhof or any good Reformed systematic theology. All I am saying is if you have an understanding of this doctrine from a sound Reformed source you may see that you will have to revise what you've writtten a bit. Or maybe not, but at least know what you are arguing against.

You write: '"Church," however, always refers to something local and visible, that is, an assembly, which is the meaning of term ekklesia.'

The second part of that sentence doesn't necessarily follow from the first. Again, if you go to a good Reformed ST you'll find many Scripture verses where ekklesia is used to denote the whole body, throughout the world, of believers; and even the whole body of the faithful, in heaven or on earth, spiritually united to Christ such as Eph. 1:22.

Kent Brandenburg said...

Thanks again James.

I am a biblical theologian more than a systematic one. I have obtained my theology by reading the Bible. I have referenced the WC to show something to be historical belief. I don't just reference the reformers, but others before them, when possible. However, the WC on preservation would impact someone like Daniel B. Wallace.

The term ekklesia is found 118 times in the NT. 113 it is clearly local only. The other 5 are at most a generic use of the singular noun. A singular in any language, including Greek, is either particular or generic. When used as a generic, that usage doesn't change the meaning of the word. There is no platonic, Augustinian usage of the singular noun in Greek grammar. I'm bound by grammar for my meaning in a grammatical-historical interpretation, i.e. literal. In the 113 usages of ekklesia it is local and visible. Good hermeneutics says that I interpret 5 based upon the 113, not 113 based upon the 5.

I wouldn't even call Eph. 1:22 one of the 5. We have no reason there to take it as anything but a particular, speaking of the church at Ephesus. Christ was the Head of the church at Ephesus. When 1 Cor. 1:2 is called "the church of God at Corinth," were all believers in Corinth? Of course not. When Eph. 5:23 says "the husband of the head of the wife," is that a universal, invisible husband and wife?

You really do have to read in all believers into Eph. 1:22 to get it out of there.

James said...

That's why I didn't want to list alot of verses along with Eph. 1:22. When you only have a hammer, everything looks like a nail, as they say...

Separating biblical theology from systematic theology as you do is a common misunderstanding of what systematic theology is. Biblical theology is part of the process of systematic theology. John Calvin, for instance, was one of the greatest of biblical theologians. The best of our era was Geerhardus Vos. He stated: "Dogmatics [systematic theology] is the crown which grows out of all the work that biblical theology can accomplish."

Kent Brandenburg said...

I've read Vos' Biblical Theology. The quote you give is exactly my point. I'm going to Scripture to show you that the church is local and visible, that's how we see it in our context. Instead of reading Berkhof and then going to Scripture, go to Scripture to evaluate Berkhof. That's why we should parse out the verses. You didn't answer my question about "the husband" and "the wife."

Thanks again.

James said...

>"I'm going to Scripture to show you that the church is local and visible, that's how we see it in our context. Instead of reading Berkhof and then going to Scripture, go to Scripture to evaluate Berkhof."

Again, I suggest in the context of real spiritual warfare your ability to see what the Bible is saying regarding this will - should - increase. You just don't realize you are arguing the very unbiblical and deadly Roman Catholic doctrine of the church. And your swipe about me reading Berkhof then reading the Bible is worthy of Critical Text priests in how they argue against traditional text types. I know, as I've stated, I'm one of the latter.

We come into understanding of sound doctrine in many ways. Including drawing on the collective work and wisdom of teachers (one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit). What you've accused me of doing I could turn around and accuse you of: you've decided that the Bible never mentioned church other than visible and local, so now you go to the Bible and wallah, you only see references that are to visible and local.

I'm a Protestant - a Calvinist in my case - for a reason. And the doctrine of the visible/invisible church is actually rather central, especially in the context of spiritual warfare. Also, when you are familiar with the usual attacks by the devil on apostolic biblical doctrine it is the doctrine of the visible/invisible church that is one they go after first. (Currently Reformed Theology is weathering attacks from people calling themselves 'Federal Vision' and for them to have their revisionist program adopted they need to, among other things, get rid of the doctrine of the invisible church.)

Do you believe in baptismal regeneration?

And your questions regarding husband and wife and so on don't get at the doctrine in question. You have a fundamental non-understanding of the doctrine in question. As I stated in my first comment. It's really a matter of being a practical conclusion the Word of God teaches. Can you know or see all who are elect? Do the elect who have passed on cease to be in the Church of which Christ is King? Your objections smack of clericalism, frankly, but whatever is the case you need to acquaint yourself in a real way with the doctrine you are fulminating against...

Anonymous said...

Dear James,

If you visit my website, http://thross7.googlepages.com/home (note no www), please read my essay "Are The Reformers Heretics?" you will notice information such as this quote from Calvin, where he plainly said that outside the VISIBLE church there is no salvation (following Augustine, who said that there was a invisible church within the visible church):

"It is now our purpose to discourse of the visible Church. Let us learn, from her single title of Mother, how useful, nay, how necessary the knowledge of her is, since there is no other means of entering into life unless she conceive us in the womb and give us birth, unless she nourish us at her breasts, and, in short, keep us under her charge and government, until, divested of mortal flesh, we become like the angels (Matt 22:30). For our weakness does not permit us to leave the school until we have spent our whole lives as scholars. Moreover, beyond the pale of the Church no forgiveness of sins, no salvation, can be hoped for, as Isaiah and Joel testify (Isa 37:32; Joel 2:32). To their testimony Ezekiel subscribes, when he declares, “They shall not be in the assembly of my people, neither shall they be written in the writing of the house of Israel” (Ezek 13:9), as, on the other hand, those who turn to the cultivation of true piety are said to inscribe their names among the citizens of Jerusalem. For which reason it is said in the psalm, “Remember me, O Lord, with the favour that thou bearest unto thy people: O visit me with thy salvation; that I may see the good of thy chosen, that I may rejoice in the gladness of thy nation, that I may glory with thine inheritance” (Ps 106:4-5). By these words the paternal favour of God and the special evidence of spiritual life are confined to his peculiar people, and hence the abandonment of the Church is always fatal” (Calvin, Institutes, 4:1:4). The notion that outside of the visible church there is no salvation is not inconsistent with the doctrine of an invisible church made up of the elect; Calvin’s favorite patristic writer, Augustine, held both dogmas, affirming that the invisible church of the elect consisted of a portion of the members of the visible catholic church, but nobody was a member of the invisible church who was not as well a member of the visible Catholic denomination.

Dear Pastor Brandenburg,

I agree entirely with you that there is no Spirit baptism in 1 Corinthians 12:13 (although, as we discussed earlier, I believe "by one Spirit" is correct). You have admirably proved that there is no Spirit baptism in the verse. Before we use Tyndale, etc. as evidence that these men did not think 1 Cor 12:13 was the Holy Spirit, please note that Tyndale NEVER capitalized "sprete" in his Bible. A search for the word in 1 Cor 12:13 in the Tyndale Bible will reveal this. He used the word in verses such as:

John 1:33 and I knewe him not. But he that sent me to baptise in water the same sayde vnto me: apon whom thou shalt se the sprete descende and tary styll on him the same is he which baptiseth with the holy goost.

Note that "holy goost" is not capitalized either. The quote from Clement of Alexandria concerning capitalization is also problematic; Clement wrote in Greek, and whether or not the word "spirit" is capitalized is simply a matter of the translator's opinion. The Wycliff Bible is very inconsistent in its capitalization, but in verses where reference is without dispute the Holy Spirit, He does not get capitalized, such as in John 1:32: "And Joon bar witnessyng, and seide, That Y saiy the spirit comynge doun as a culuer fro heuene, and dwellide on hym."

They capitalized very differently back then. Sometimes they did not capitalize "son" in "Son of God" either. Whether we think that the context supports "by one Spirit" in 1 Cor 12:13 or "in one spirit," I am not sure about the value of the capitalization argument.

-Thomas Ross

Anonymous said...

BTW, in part four of this 1 Cor 12:13 discussion in the comments, there is a (I trust edifying) 1 Cor 12:13 in one spirit/by one Spirit discussion.

-Thomas Ross again

Kent Brandenburg said...

Thanks Thomas for your additions. I think they are worthy additions and should be taken into consideration.

However, I have a difficult time believing that you don't understand the contribution of such statements to historic theology, which you know, as well as I, is important. You have stated to me several times that the KJV translators capitalization has a huge impact on your position. When I include the original 1611 translation, which you don't even mention here, no recognition at all, then that becomes tell-tale. You make, in my opinion, a legitimate point with Tyndale, and Clement and Wycliffe are decent arguments, but you say nothing to the KJV argument, which you have stated is very important to you.

Your credibility would go up if you recognized a good argument when you saw it, and your failure to do so hurts your cause, IMO.

Kent Brandenburg said...

James,

I'm not arguing with you like the Critical Text guys. I'm respectfully arguing with you. Here's why? The Critical Text guys have no history of their non-preservation position, which is why they poo-poo historical theology on this issue, and say "ad fontes," "back to the sources," on this one. I don't mind arguing the texts with them, but they won't, so their position doesn't make sense at all. They deny the texts, but don't present grammatical arguments, and when we do, they go back to their "textual evidence." We go round and round. And that doesn't happen here.

You gave me a historical argument, and I gave you a historical argument. Mine happens to go back further than yours, explaining where the reformers got their positions. You should recognize that historic argument. And then when I begin to argue using the Bible, you continue going back to the reformation. The Bible is still the sole authority. So, no, I'm not like the CT guys. I think you should be able to see that. Historical theology must look at all history all the way back to the first century---it doesn't stop in the 16th and 17th centuries in our trip backwards.

I don't believe in baptismal regeneration. We're ready to publish a 200 plus page book written by no other than the Thomas in this comment section refuting baptismal regeneration. James, Ekklesia is not a soteriological term. "Family of God" and "kingdom of God" are. "In Christ" is salvation terminology. "Body of Christ" is ecclesiological terminology.

I've placed other quotes in this six part series to show this is also historical. It is found in the Schleitheim Confession, 1527, previous to the WC. Go back to Clement of Rome and you'll see that he was local only in his ecclesiology.

"In Christ" and "into the body of Christ" are not the same thing, James. You just dismiss my biblical argument on the generic singular noun. Really, that's exactly what Daniel B. Wallace did with my Scriptural arguments for the doctrine of preservation. You really do need to take Scriptural arguments into consideration. You said nothing about the 113 usages of the church being clearly local only. You didn't have an answer for the Augustine/Donatist argument.

I know the federal vision argument. I read Douglas Wilson some and he talks about it all the time.

Thanks for discussing, James.

Kent Brandenburg said...

By the way, James, to explain Thomas' and my argument, we are simply arguing over one minute point that changes what we believe very little. He believes that 1 Corinthians 12:13 should be understood as the Holy Spirit and I believe it is a human spirit of unity. He makes good arguments using the text, but I believe that they fall short.

Thomas, I forgot to mention this to you, but you misquoted Daniel Wallace. I would assume that you didn't do it on purpose. I looked it up in A. T. Robertson too. Not all inarticular nouns are indedinite. One category that isn't is when it is with ordinal numerals. Ordinal numerals. "Fourth," "Third," Etc. "One" is not an ordinal numeral, but a cardinal numeral. You leave out the all important "The" in his quote (kind of ironic don't you think). "The number identifies." He uses the definite article to say that it is a kind of numeral, an ordinal. You write "a number" for your own purposes, which makes me wonder if you didn't do it on purpose (because it is odd to leave one word out of a quote). I don't think this proves my point necessarily, but it does prove that your point doesn't prove anything either.

I will say that my Tyndale quote was an honest mistake. I should have looked up other usages of "Spirit." You did that for me.

A. T. Robertson also says it is for ordinal numerals, but specifically he says it is not always for cardinal numerals. If I said "One woman ate a hot dog at the fair," that doesn't make "woman" a definite.

James said...

>"Dear James, If you visit my website, http://thross7.googlepages.com/home (note no www), please read my essay "Are The Reformers Heretics?" you will notice information such as this quote from Calvin, where he plainly said that outside the VISIBLE church there is no salvation"

I've said this enough times, so I won't become repetitious beyond this, but if you understood what Calvin and the Reformation understood by the visible/invisible church you'd know that Calvin is referring to the coetus electorum when he says visible church vis-a-vis salvation. The community of the elect. NOT the ecclesia militans improprie dicta, the church of the saints and the hypocrites -- the elect and non-elect together. The former is called 'visible' in the doctrine of the ecclesia visibilis/ecclesia invisibilis.

Didn't intend to pull any Latin terminology off the shelf on anybody, but it is just to show this is a doctrine in Reformed Theology that is rather 'worked out' (with Scriptural support and everything!), and not some loose, extra-biblical idea.

It is also a practical doctrine of Scripture that tends to come to the fore in the heat of real spiritual warfare. Read Calvin's reply to Sadoleto.

Disagree with the doctrine, fine, but just know what it is you are disagreeing with. That's all I'm saying...

Anonymous said...

Dear Pastor Brandenburg,

I wasn't at home (I'm at Pastor Nordgren's house) and I didn't have a 1611 KJV with me, so I couldn't address that point or comment on it. I agree with you that it doesn't change if 1 Cor 12:13 is Spirit baptism or not; it isn't.

-Thomas

Kent Brandenburg said...

If you want to look it up on your own, here's the site:

http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=1co+12:13&t=kja&sr=1&l=en

Anonymous said...

I went to the Schoenberg Center for Electronic Text and Image (Furness Collection) and looked at the actual reprint on that website of the first printed KJV. One who goes there will notice that all the "s"'s for "Spirit" in 1 Cor 12:1-13 look like the letter "f" and they are ALL lower case. I can't search the document on the website. However, to make a doctrinal point form a lower case "s" in 1 Cor 12:13 in the original 1611 KJV seems faulty unless one wants to assert that the Holy Spirit is not anywhere in 1 Cor 12, and it also appears problematic in light of the fact that the "s" is written like an "f."

-Thomas Ross

Anonymous said...

James,

what you said about the Calvin quote does not make any sense. Calvin says that there is no salvation outside of the VISIBLE church. Note he also says that one can be a part of the visible church and leave it in that quote. If you want to say that this is talking about all the elect people worldwide as a universal, visible church (a totally unBiblical concept in any case), note that Calvin says one can LEAVE the membership of this visible church. That would mean, on your (invalid) reasoning, that Calvin was affirming that one could be elect and then fall away from election/salvation, a proposition I think you would not want to affirm. I would suggest reading (if you have not already) my essay before commenting further, since it is just possible that we actually do know what we are talking about and have actually studied the theology of these Reformers when we condemn it as unBiblical.

-Thomas Ross

Anonymous said...

And that Ladies and Gentlemen is the way it was!!
I got lost on the third paragraph of the blog and the sixth comment from either James, Thomas or possibly Kent.....oops. Pastor Dr. Brandenburg.
Regardless makes for interesting reading. And you know some people YOU will never change......right Pastor?

Be Blessed

Anonymous said...

Two notes:

1.) Pastor Brandenburg, you were correct that Wallace specifically said ordinal numbers. I overlooked that.

2.) I looked at the word "spirit" in my 1611 KJV when I got home, and it was lower case everywhere in 1 Cor 12, even in places where we would clearly think it is the Holy Spirit.

Grace and peace in Christ,

Thomas Ross

Anonymous said...

You are a 100% wrong. I am Greek and know ancient Greek. First of all the N.T. was written all with capital letters so the "S" was capital. Secondly, when we read about baptism in the Spirit we mean just that. You are using mistranslations of Scripture in order to teach heresy. If you are not baptized in the Holy Spirit you are not members of Christ's Church but heretics.

Thomas Ross said...

Dear Anonymous,

Do you have a copy of the autographs so that you can show us that they were written in capital letters?

I am not a Greek, but I teach college and seminary Greek. I have read the NT through in Greek and am on my second time through. I know that the fourth through ninth century manuscripts of the NT that we have are written in capital letters. How this is supposed to tell us anything about what the autographs were is beyond me. Your conclusions and accusations of heresy are erroneous and invalid.