The Myth of the Harshness of Right Wing Tone or Hypocrisy from the Left on Tone or Attitude

I warn you that my tone might be sharp in this blog. Some also call it "interesting writing." However, I want to put a disclaimer on my own blog by saying that the tone that you hear here (luv those homonyms) will be sharper (not as in sharper iron) for effect.

Recently, the boys (and girls) at SharperIron (what I sometimes affectionately call "SharperSpatula") marked me for a difference than most of them on tone. Dave Barnhart, one of the SI moderators (who I think is also Anvil), wrote:

Well, for example, we would have a pretty good about their attitudes on separation, even if not on the specifics of what was separated from. And, as Joel said, the scale speaks more to "mood" than to certain exact positions. However, I'm sure you can always find specific cases for which the scale doesn't work very well. That still doesn't change its general usefulness. Further, it would be more interesting to me when those two meet how they would classify themselves. Personally, from what I know of both those men (and that is admittedly not as much as I probably should), I would classify Schapp as an A+ or A++ anyway. Interestingly, back when he was here, that was Kent Brandenburg's disagreement with the scale as well -- that he would be lumped in with the Hylesites when he was nothing like that. Although the positions (and probably methods) differ greatly, I think the "mood" would be pretty similar.

No one disagreed with him (not that anyone would defend me at SI) about my tone. Only because of my "tone," I'm categorized with Jack Schapp. How 'bout those apricots? Where can I get my official tone judge certificate? On a historical note, I was given a "guest" pass (no posting privileges) on SI by King Tone for identifying poor tone in one of their articles written by the mellowmeister himself, Douglas Kutilek. That's why Dave wrote, "back when he was here" in his comment, because I is not visibly there any more. Among other of his customary and egregious tone violations, Mr. Kutilek essentially called all King James Version supporters "lemmings." In a private note, the Tone CEO at SI said that he agreed with Doug's particular tone in his essay. They privately like harsh tone. Very fun when it agrees with them.

First, regarding the quote, I'm far different doctrinally than Schapp, further from them than SI. I would rate Joe Roof (one of the male moderators) a bedfellow doctrinally with the Hyles group compared to me based on most of what he says (for which he gets a free pass over there, incidentally [see political correctness {1}]). Regarding methods differences, Dave says "probably methods." Probably? "Probably" quite understates the western hemisphere, the solar system, that separates the Schapp and Brandenburg methodology. By the way, I don't put Jason Janz and Red Rocks as that far away from Schapp/Hyles in methods. I especially don't see very much at all different in methodology between Hyles and SI's beloved Dan Burrell. So, we get to tone, becoming the chief categorical factor (I think to myself, "are you kidding me?"). We pass doctrine and methods, don't even collect our 200 dollars, and go directly to tone.

Well, here's the difference between Schaap and me in tone. I give evidence. I open my Bible. I say it directly, but use the Bible, exegesis, that kind of thing. Schaap spews out propaganda, psychological warfare. Our sameness might be that we are both direct. In other words, we might say it right to the person (and I say "might" only because he "might not" go direct). Our sameness is that very likely he thinks he's right. I think I'm right. The left of us would say that they are nuanced. That they have a sophistication about them. They give latitude. They are accepting.

Well, I don't have the time right now, but I'm going to provide examples how that this "tone" thing is, well, garbage. It isn't even true. Both sides think they're right. It's just idealogical differences, really a worldview. Culture is more at the root of it. It's part of the culture war. Tone sounds better. But it isn't tone.

{1} Wikipedia says: "The term "political correctness" is derived from Marxist-Leninist vocabulary, and was used to describe the appropriate "party line", commonly referred to as the "correct line." Those people who opposed (or were seen as opposing) the "correct line" were often punished. A similar term has been used in communist countries, such as China."

NURSERY RHYMES ARE DESTROYING AMERICA: Little Jack Horner

Consider Little Jack Horner for a moment---he who sat in a corner. First, notice his situation---a corner---and ask yourself why? The TIME-OUT, of course, a failure of a discipline program. Rather than spanking the boy, they sit him down, separating him from others, making an example of him, all good and well. I can only speculate in saying that he needed to be in the corner for what others would creep up from behind and do to him out of retaliation. But I digress.

Second, consider his superstition. Simply because he puts in a thumb and pulls out a plum (not personally a plum fan here), somehow this is a sign to him. A sign. Sigh. A sign. An evil and adulterous generation seeks after signs. Put away your superstition, Jack! Please, before it is too late! And those reading, let this be an example of how your superstition will corner you every time.

And lastly, let us see his self-esteem. Despite the corner situation and the nefarious superstition, Mr. Horner proclaims for all: "What a good boy am I?" My head is wagging here. Sad. Just sad. No man is good. None. Little boy. Little girl. Mincemeat eaters. Celery eaters. Plum eaters. Reese's Peanut Butter Cup eaters. A good boy---NOT. I don't care what kind of supposed good works he thinks he's done. This is sheer psychological manipulation. Even at his best state, Jack is only vanity. Vanity! I don't know. Perhaps he heard the Jesse Jackson speech, "I am somebody!" Jack is a lover of his own self. Put away the self-esteem Jack! Or hit the road! Get yourself back to the table. Your seat is empty, but the table is full.

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.

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

Universal church advocates take 1 Corinthians 12:13 as their proof text. Perhaps we could say that "by one spirit of fallacy they read into this passage one numerical, universal, invisible, mystical body." They commit this hermeneutical blunder against the context of the Bible and the epistle, and now we look at the chapter.

The Context of 1 Corinthians 12

1 Corinthians 12 begins a treatise by Paul on spiritual gifts. He would not have us be ignorant (v. 1). Everyone is different spiritually---there are diversities of gifts. However, there is one Spirit. As much as everyone has a different spiritual giftedness and even a different manifestation of that giftedness, he has the same Holy Spirit (vv. 4-11). The text implies that if everyone had the same gift, a church wouldn't have unity. All of the various gifts enable one body of Christ (v. 12).

The church at Corinth fought over almost anything. Gifts were no exception. They sought after the most self-promoting gifts for themselves (v. 31). However, the gifts were not to divide, but to unify. The act that brought them into identification with the church itself pictured this unity. People of various ethnicities ("Jews and Gentiles") cultural and socioeconomical backgrounds ("bond and free") were all brought into the assembly by means of baptism. No individual would be excluded from the group based on such tangential and temporal criteria. The ordinance of baptism brought many into one (Acts 2:41). Their selfish infighting wasn't in fitting with their initiation into the Lord's body. The waters of baptism welcome anyone in Corinth who received Christ.

The Corinthian Church was dis-united over the practice of baptism (1 Cor. 1:11-17) and the "drinking" relative to the Lord's Supper (1 Cor. 11:18-34). Not only baptism, but also the ordinance of the Lord's Table symbolized this unity. The Corinthian believers had been made "to drink into" (eis) or with reference to "the spirit of unity." The unity of the church is testified by the Lord's Supper, whether bond, free, Jew, or Gentile. We see this same concept about the Lord's Table earlier in 10:16, 17.

As you read along in 1 Corinthians 12, you'll notice that the body being described is a local entity. A hand, eye, and foot are all local and visible, not universal and mystical. They must be in one location to work together---they wouldn't work together spread out.

Verse 25 says there is to be no schism in the body. There are multiple and constant schisms, divisions, between professing believers. Divisions are required. 1 Corinthians 11:18, 19 says they're necessary. Many other places require separation from believers (2 Thess. 3:6-15). Only if the body is local could there be no schisms. God has designed the church to settle disputes and confront sin in various manners (1 Cor. 6; Matthew 18:15-18). So v. 25 makes sense only if the body is local and visible.

In v. 26, how could a fellow believer in America be suffering out of sympathy for an unknown believer in Africa? The assumption here is that these people are in the same spot, so are able to comfort one another in this close proximity. We can feel each other's pain within a local church just like in a real body. The suffering of another church member affects other church members since they are all body parts of the same body.

1 Corinthians 12:27 clinches it when Paul writes: "Ye are the body of Christ." In the context of 1 Corinthians 12, the body is the church at Corinth, which is local and visible. Believers joined that church by means of water baptism, publically identifying with Christ and His body. If the body of Christ was all believers, Paul would have written, "We are the body of Christ."

What we see occurring in 1 Corinthians 12 doesn't fit with something universal and invisible. The chapter does fit with the church of Corinth, and, therefore, any local church. Each genuine church is the body of Christ. Saints are admitted a part of His body through water baptism, unifying with that particular church.

Is Water Baptism in 1 Corinthians 12:13 a Historical Understanding?

Historicity

The very early Schleitheim Confession of 1527, written by anabaptist Michael Sattler, clearly reflects this plain teaching of 1 Corinthians 12:13 in two of the articles:

II. We are agreed as follows on the ban: The ban shall be employed with all those who have given themselves to the Lord, to walk in His commandments, and with all those who are baptized into the one body of Christ and who are called brethren or sisters, and yet who slip sometimes and fall into error and sin, being inadvertently overtaken. The same shall be admonished twice in secret and the third time openly disciplined or banned according to the command of Christ. Matt. 18. But this shall be done according to the regulation of the Spirit (Matt. 5) before the breaking of bread, so that we may break and eat one bread, with one mind and in one love, and may drink of one cup.

III. In the breaking of bread we are of one mind and are agreed (as follows): All those who wish to break one bread in remembrance of the broken body of Christ, and all who wish to drink of one drink as a remembrance of the shed blood of Christ, shall be united beforehand by baptism in one body of Christ which is the church of God and whose Head is Christ. For as Paul points out, we cannot at the same time drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of the devil. That is, all those who have fellowship with the dead works of darkness have no part in the light. Therefore all who follow the devil and the world have no part with those who are called unto God out of the world. All who lie in evil have no part in the good.

Therefore it is and must be (thus): Whoever has not been called by one God to one faith, to one baptism, to one Spirit, to one body, with all the children of God's church, cannot be made (into) one bread with them, as indeed must be done if one is truly to break bread according to the command of Christ.

E. T. Hiscox in the The Standard Manual for Baptist Churches (1894, p. 22), wrote:

In the Apostolic age when there was but 'one Lord, one faith, and one baptism,' and no differing denominations existed, the baptism of a convert by that very act constituted him a member of the church, and at once endowed him with all the rights and privileges of full membership. In that sense,'baptism was the door into the church.'

A. W. Pink said:

[T]he "baptism" by which one enters "into" a New Testament church is water baptism, for the Holy Spirit does not "baptize" anybody into a local assembly.

What Others Say

Albert Mohler in “The Biblical Basis for the Baptist Vision of the Church (as a Body of Baptized Believers)”, (The Baptist Messenger, July 11, 2006), wrote:

[T]he common experience of believer’s baptism is central to the unity and identity of the church. In Ephesians 4:5, Paul writes of the church as constituted by “one Lord, one faith, one baptism.” In 1 Corinthians 12:13, Paul reminds us: “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.” Thus baptism is presented as a necessary act of obedience to Christ that marks the believer’s incorporation into the church as the Body of Christ. Put simply, the New Testament has no concept of an unbaptized Christian, much less an unbaptized church member.

B. H. Carroll wrote:

[T]his verse has no reference whatsoever to either the Holy Spirit or Holy Spirit baptism. Paul was writing to saved persons, members of the Corinthian church who had been baptized into that church, which is the only scriptural way of entrance into any sound church.

Water baptism into a local church is a historical view of 1 Corinthians 12:13, no private interpretation.

We'll probably be done next time with some practical ramifications.

Paul Potts: Not to Be Confused with the Cambodian Dictator

Alright. A little break from our normal theological and exegetical fare. Paul Potts.

My son was listening to the computer stream of classical music in our area---KDFC in San Francisco---and he came across on that website a clip from a television program in England called, I think, "Britains Got Talent," something like that. So. They were having auditions for this program and there appeared a mobile phone salesman, named Paul Potts, and he said he wanted to sing opera. OK. Right. I'll let you tell me what you think, but I want you to be honest with these reactions when you comment. And please do comment.

1. Did you get the chills?
2. Did hair stand up on your body?
3. Did your eyes mist up if not cry?
4. Were you surprised?

Answer those questions in that order for me. Watch Paul Potts.

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

To understand Scripture, you need to know what the words mean. You learn what they mean first by looking up how they are used in the Bible. If one isn't used anywhere else in the NT, then you can get some help by studying the usage in the LXX or in extrascriptural literature. The meaning of the words should fit into how they are normally used in the Bible. If there is an exceptional understanding, that should be explainable. The correct meaning of those words should fit into the context of the verse. We've covered some context while determining the meaning of the words. Now we'll do more.

The Context of 1 Corinthians 12:13

The Context of Scripture

If this is Spirit baptism here in 1 Corinthians, as understood by either the Protestants or the Charismatics, it should look like Spirit baptism in the rest of Scripture. It doesn't, which is a major reason why it can't be Spirit baptism. We've already pointed out that Spirit baptism is predicted in the gospels (Mt. 3:11; Mk. 1:8; Lk. 3:16). That prediction is that the Jesus will administrate the baptism with the Holy Spirit as the medium and already saved, immersed individuals as the recipients. Spirit baptism was predicted in the Old Testament as well.

Isaiah 44:3 For I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground: I will pour my spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine offspring.

Joel 2:28 And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions

Acts 2:17, 18 says that this was fulfilled on the Day of Pentecost.

And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy.

Jesus talks about the same event in John.

John 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me.

John 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

The Lord Jesus Christ promises His disciples that after He ascends into heaven, He will send the Holy Spirit. He reminds them again of that in Acts 1:4-8. By reading this Acts passage, you can see for sure that those Old Testament passages, the early gospel passages, and the promises by Jesus in John are all speaking about the same event.

4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. 5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. 6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? 7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. 8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

First, nowhere do we see the Spirit doing the baptizing. Second, in no place do we see Spirit baptism being the same thing as the indwelling of the Spirit. Third, we do not see this experience of Spirit baptism occurring simultaneous with justification, but subsequent not only to justification, but also to water baptism. Fourth, nowhere is this revealed to be an ongoing experience.

We see the outpouring in Isaiah and Joel to be the same as the gospel predictions and Christ's promises. They are fulfilled as an event in Acts---the coming of the Holy Spirit as sent or poured out by Christ. This is what we should assume that Spirit baptism would be in the future. This event is not what we see in 1 Corinthians 12:13.

The Context of the Whole Epistle of 1 Corinthians

To start, 1 Corinthians is an epistle to a church, one in Corinth. It is a problemed church, started by Paul and loved by him, so he helps the membership out by writing them. He isn't writing all believers. He is writing people in one location who are members of one church. That should be kept in mind in everything that we read in 1 Corinthians. You can apply it to your church because it was written to another of Christ's churches.

The church at Corinth is having divisions that we see back in chapter one. The church has differences. The people have had different leaders and they have their favorites. They are of different nationalities, ethnicities, races, genders, traditions, socio-economics, and religious backgrounds. Some have a bad home life, while others seem to be squared away in their families. They possess differing gifts or mixtures of gifts even as parceled out by the Holy Spirit.

A major goal for Paul is bringing these people in this church together. He wants to bring them together with biblical, spiritual truths. He wants to unify them around the Person and Work of the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. He strives for a cohesive body of working, serving body parts. If they submit to God through His Spirit, they can have this. If they do, it will look like love, a fruit of the Holy Spirit, supernaturally enabling them to put behind them some differences and to learn to use profitably and selflessly some others.

1 Corinthians 12:13 is a sliver of the work Paul is doing in his epistle to picture and encourage the unity that is already there spiritually between believers. It isn't presenting some novel truth in 1 Corinthians, but one he is dealing with---unity. And baptism has already been established as water---water baptism by Paul, by Apollos, by others. Paul thanked God he had water baptized none of them. They had been baptized unto Moses in the sea. What had been used for disunity, water baptism, was really a picture of unity. Just like the Lord's Table was a picture of unity---one bread---it too had been used for disunity, the fighting described in chapter eleven. These ordinances of Christ, baptism and the Lord's Table, were beautiful pictures of the unity of the church that Paul desired. The church of God at Corinth should unify in accordance with the ordinances that its members have obeyed.

More on Context Next Time

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

Understanding 1 Corinthians 12:13 isn't that difficult, but it's been complicated by the invention of the universal, invisible, mystical church theory. Because of the influence of Catholicism and then the Charismatic movement, people are confused about Spirit baptism. The twisting of this verse has been part cause. For this reason especially, it is important that you know what it means. So let's get going again.

More Words, Phrases, and Clauses of 1 Corinthians 12:13

"Are We All"

Universal church advocates point at the "we" here as their best evidence that 1 Corinthians 12:13 must be talking about Spirit baptism. Bill Combs, professor at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, uses the plural "we" to argue this way:

According to Rom 12:5, Paul was a member of the same body as the Romans: "so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another." Notice Paul includes himself as a member of the same body as the Romans--"so we...." Paul had never been to Rome so he could not have been a member of the local church in Rome.

According to 1 Cor 12:13, Paul was a member of the same body as the Corinthians: "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit." Notice Paul includes himself as a member of the same body as the Corinthians--"we were...."

You might read this and say, "Dr. Combs certainly settled it with those points." Well, no. Just because Paul and the members of the church at Corinth were baptized into one body doesn't mean that they were baptized into the same body. Consider 1 Timothy 3:12:

Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

If we apply the same kind of thinking to this verse as Combs applied to Romans 12:5, then Paul was instructing all the deacons in the church at Ephesus to marry the same woman. However, I think it is obvious to everyone that Paul meant that each deacon should have only one wife.

Paul said "we" because he too was baptized into one body, not the same body. If I said, "we all took the bus to the game," that doesn't assume that we all rode the same vehicle. Paul wasn't including himself in the same body as the church at Corinth by saying "we." If he was doing that, he would have said, "We are all baptized into your body." His point was that everyone who is water baptized, including himself, joins himself to one church, unifying himself with that church. Even though they are many members, as having associated by means of water baptism, they are all one body as well.

The term "we" often does not include the speaker in the group to whom he is speaking. In the same epistle, Paul writes in 10:20-22:

20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. 21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils. 22 Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he?

Look at v. 22. Was Paul fellowshiping with devils? Was he provoking the Lord to jealousy by doing so? So was he including himself with these Corinthians by saying "we"? I don't think so. Combs says that Paul puts himself in the same body by saying "we." We doesn't necessarily include Paul in the same body.

Consider Acts 2:8:

And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?

First, was everyone hearing in the same language? No. Was everyone from the same country? No.

Consider 2 Timothy 2:12:

If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us.

Was it possible Paul was going to deny the Lord? No. Just because he used the pronoun "we," doesn't mean that he was including himself with that group.

If I say "We all bought one shotgun," I don't mean that we bought the same shotgun. If I say, "We all played one game," I don't mean that we played the same game. If I say, "We all caught one fish," I don't mean that we caught the same fish. If I say, "We all invested in one mutual fund," I don't mean that we invested in the same fund.

Because Paul wrote, "We all are baptized into one body," he didn't mean that he was baptized into the same body as the church at Corinth. What he meant was that he was baptized into one body just like those at Corinth were baptized into one body.

"One Body"

Both universal church proponents and local church only advocates would agree that the "one body" here is "the body of Christ." Where in Scripture is "the body of Christ" defined? This is crucial, because there is only one place that we get a definition of "the body of Christ." It is in v. 27 of 1 Corinthians 12. In this very context we have the body of Christ defined for us. 1 Corinthians 12:27 reads:

Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

Paul says that the church at Corinth is the body of Christ. If the body of Christ is all believers, like the universal church people teach, then Paul would have said, "We are the body of Christ." He doesn't. I don't want to call the church at Corinth "the local church" because it is redundant. It is a bow to universal church doctrine. The church at Corinth is the church. The church is local only. It isn't all saved people. It is a body of believers that meets in a particular location, just like the human body is found in one location.

The members of a human body are all right where the body is. That is why Paul couldn't include himself when he was referring to their body. Their body was different than his body. All bodies have something in common---they're all bodies. Since they all have that in common, they could be referred to as the body. I could say, "The body is a marvel." I'm not talking about any body in particular. But if I say, "Your body is a marvel," then you know I'm talking about one in particular.

When Paul writes, "Ye are the body of Christ," he nails down the definition of the body of Christ. It is the local church. He was water baptized into the church at Damascus by Ananias. Those church members at Corinth were baptized into the church at Corinth. We are all baptized into one body. The many become the one through water baptism.

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

We started an article on the exegetical fallacies of 1 Corinthians 12:13 that have resulted in the invention of a universal, invisible, mystical church.

More Words, Phrases, and Clauses of 1 Corinthians 12:13

"By One Spirit"

I saved this one for later for at least two reasons: first, it isn’t that important in determining the teaching of this text, and, second, it is a little more controversial mainly among local only proponents. Scripture can mean only one thing, but sometimes there are two interpretations that might both fit the context and neither change the doctrine of the passage, so both are feasible. I believe that someone can argue contextually and grammatically for two different views here. At the end, I’ll tell you what I prefer. In both cases, the positions are sometimes guided by one’s understanding of the preservation of Scripture. I believe God preserved His Words in the languages in which they were written and that the KJV is an accurate translation of those Words. Others place a higher degree of importance on the exact Words of the English of the King James. I don’t want to get into a KJV discussion right now, but I give that as some background information.

Universal Church People and "By One Spirit"

Before we look at the two possible views of "by one Spirit," we will consider how the universal church people take this. They take views sometimes significantly different. W. Harold Mare in Expositor’s Bible Commentary writes (p. 264):

The church, the invisible church, . . . . has been united by the one Spirit into one spiritual body in baptism.

Bob Deffinbaugh says the same:

Our membership in Christ’s body begins at the time we are saved, and it is the work of the Holy Spirit, who baptizes us into the church by identifying us with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection.

In a sermon series that is found online, John MacArthur agrees too with Mare and Deffinbaugh:

Paul is saying that the same Spirit has immersed every believer in the same unity with Christ that constitutes His body. The baptism Paul is referring to is a spiritual reality that brings the believer into a vital union with Christ. The word means "to immerse." And as somebody could be immersed in water, so somebody could be immersed in the body of Christ. In other words, you are in a new environment, a new atmosphere, a new union, a new identification, a new oneness with Christ.

A little later in the same sermon, he says:

It is the fact that when you believe God, He places you into the Son by His Spirit. That is the baptizing by the Holy Spirit.

This earlier MacArthur clashes with the later MacArthur commentary, in which he says that it isn’t the Holy Spirit doing the baptizing, but Jesus that is doing the baptizing. This is major, because it is a decision about Who is doing the baptizing, Jesus or the Holy Spirit. In his commentary (p. 312), he says:

Because believers are baptized by Christ, it is therefore best to translate this phrase as "with one Spirit." It is not the Holy Spirit’s baptism but Christ’s baptism with the Holy Spirit that give us new life and places us into the Body when we trust in Christ.

So now MacArthur says that we are baptized by Christ. He didn't announce his change that I have ever heard. You see Christ baptizing in the verse, don’t you? You don’t? Why not? It isn’t in there. First he says that the Spirit baptizes believers in Christ, and now He says Christ baptizes with the Holy Spirit. Does the verse say that Christ is doing the baptizing? No. But MacArthur knows that the prediction in the Gospels and Acts made by John the Baptist and Christ says that Jesus does the baptizing in Spirit baptism. Therefore, even though 1 Corinthians 12:13 doesn’t say that we are baptized by Christ (Christ baptism), he reads that into the text. This is the same thing that Gordon Fee does in his commentary on 1 Corinthians (p. 606, NIC-NT Commentary). The baptism by Christ into the body of Christ is read into the verse to attempt to fit what we see in 1 Corinthians 12:13 with what we read in the Gospels and Acts.

Most universal church advocates say that Spirit baptism or Christ baptism, or whatever it is exactly to them, is the reception of the Holy Spirit and they will often reference Romans 8:9. I believe Romans 8:9 is the best verse in Scripture on the indwelling Holy Spirit. They therefore bring together the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and the baptism of the Holy Spirit as the same activity of the Spirit. No verse in Scripture actually teaches this and you won’t find it in Romans 8:9, which simply says that the Spirit of God dwells in believers.

Local Church People and "By One Spirit"

One large segment of local church people teach that the Holy Spirit is one agency of water baptism. They teach that the Holy Spirit is responsible for the unity that occurs from water baptism. Forest Keener explains it this way:

It has been argued by some, who realized the error of the Catholic interpretation, that the Spirit here was "a spirit of unity," and should be translated spirit not Spirit. Such a conclusion is not necessary, and I do not believe it is either accurate or logically justified. The Spirit here is the Spirit of the context. He is the Spirit who, according to verse 3, leads one to confess Christ, in verse 4 bestows diversities of gifts, and in verse 7 manifests Himself for the overall profit of the church. He is the same Spirit who, in verse 8, gives the word of wisdom to one and the word of knowledge to another, and who in verses 9 and 10, gives gifts of faith, healing, miracles, prophecy, discerning of spirits, divers tongues, and interpretation. He is the same Spirit who, in verse 11, sovereignly divides gifts to men, individually as it pleases Him. It is, by every contextual standard of interpretation the "Spirit" of the context and thus, the Holy Spirit who is mentioned here.

Then there is the position explained by A. W. Pink:

Pneuma is always written in the Greek with a small "s," and it is a question of exposition and interpretation, not of translation in any wise, whether a small "s" or a capital "S" is to be used in each instance where the word for spirit is used. In many instances it is translated with a small "s"—spirit, (Matthew 5:3, etc). In others, where the Holy Spirit of God is referred to a capital is rightly employed. Furthermore, the Greek word pneuma is used not only to denote sometimes the Holy Spirit of God, and at others the spirit of man (as contra-distinguished from his soul and body), but is also employed psychologically; we read of ‘the spirit (pneuma) of meekness’ (1 Cor. 4:21), and of ‘the spirit (pneuma) of cowardice,’ (2 Tim. 1:7,) etc. Again in Philippians 1:27, we read ‘stand fast is one spirit.’ Note that in Philippians 1:27 even the translators of the A. V. have used only a small "s" for ‘spirit—as they most certainly ought to have done in 1 Corinthians 12:13. One other point concerning the Greek: the preposition translated ‘by’ in 1 Corinthians 12:13 is ‘en,’ which is translated in the N. T. ‘among’ 114 times, ‘by’ 142, ‘with’ 139, ‘in’ 1863
times. Comment is needless. ‘In one spirit were we all baptized’ should be the rendering of 1 Corinthians 12:13. The ‘baptism’ here is not Holy Spirit baptism at all, but water baptism. Note: Whenever we read of ‘baptism’ in the N. T without anything in the verse or context which expressly describes it, (as in Gal. 3:27; Eph. 4:5, etc.), it is always water baptism which is in view.

B. H. Carroll and Thomas Strouse agree with this view. They believe that "by one Spirit" should be understood as "in one spirit." Why? This exact Greek phrase is translated that way in Philippians 1:27 and means a "spirit of unity," which is the idea is being communicated in this context. As Pink says above, "in" is the vastly predominant translation of the Greek preposition en. The noun pneuma can be translated "spirit" or "Spirit" depending only upon the context. Since I believe in original language preservation, I can understand "by one Spirit" as "in one spirit," and that is what I believe. Strouse, who uses only the King James Version and believes in the perfect preservation of Scripture, writes concerning this phrase:

Paul employed the expression "by one Spirit" (en heni pneumati) in Phil. 1:27 as "in one spirit," referring to "the spirit of unity." Since pneumati is anarthrous in I Cor. 12:13, Paul differentiated pneumati ("spirit") from the seven previous articular references to "the Spirit" (to pneumati) as deity.

Water baptism identifies a believer with one body of Christ. The baptism brings the believer, whether bond or free, Greek or Jew, into identification with one church.