Truth Magazine

By Frank Jamerson

For by one Spirit were we all baptized into one body whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free – and have all been made to drink into one Spirit (1 Cor. 12:13).

This passage is often used to prove that a person must be baptized in the Holy Spirit. Both the context and teaching in other passages show that this cannot be the meaning of the verse.

First notice that the word en (translated “in” or “by”) is used in other verses in this chapter. “Wherefore I make known unto you, that no man speaking in (en) the Spirit of God saith, Jesus is anathema; and no man can say Jesus is Lord, but in (en) the Holy Spirit” (v. 3). The speaking “in” the Holy Spirit is obviously speaking by the direction of the Holy Spirit. In verse nine he said, “to another faith, in (en) the same Spirit; and to another gifts of healings in (en) the one Spirit.” The gifts given “by” or “in” the Spirit were those imparted by the Spirit’s power. He was the source of those gifts.

The same word is used in the verse quoted in the beginning of this article. It is “by” (en) the direction of the Spirit that we are baptized into the body of Christ. Every person who is in the body entered in this manner. This is not baptism with the Holy Spirit, but baptism that the Holy Spirit commands.

Other passages shed light on the meaning of this verse. Paul wrote the Ephesians that Christ loved the church enough to die for it, “that He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word” (Eph. 5:26). The word “by” is from the word en, just as “by” in 1 Corinthians 12:13. It is “by the word” that the church is “cleansed with the washing of water.” This harmonizes perfectly with other Bible teaching that men are baptized “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38), to “wash away thy sins” (Acts 22:16) or “into Christ” (Gal. 3:27). The writer of Hebrews made a similar statement when he said that the sacrifices and offerings according to the Old Law were taken away that Christ may establish a new law. “By” (en) that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Heb. 10:10). It was “by the Holy Spirit,” “by the word” or “by that will” that we were cleansed of our sins when we were “baptized into one body.”

Other passages also show that 1 Corinthians 12:13 cannot refer to Holy Spirit baptism. There are only two examples of Holy Spirit baptism in the New Testament. The apostles received it on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2), and the household of Cornelius in Acts 10. In both cases, those who received it spoke in tongues. The verse under discussion (1 Cor. 12:13), says that “all” were baptized into one body, but did all the church in Corinth speak in tongues? Paul asked, “Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers ? Are all workers of miracles? Do all have gifts of healings? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? But earnestly desire the best gifts. And yet I show you a more excellent way” (1 Cor. 12:29,30). The obvious answer to these questions is “No.” Since all in the church in Corinth did not speak in tongues, they did not all receive Holy Spirit baptism.

When Phillip went to Samaria and “preached good tidings concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and woman” (Acts 8:12). Were they saved? Certainly they were! Had they received the Holy Spirit baptism? No! When the apostles heard that Samaria had received the word they sent Peter and John to them to lay hands on them that they may receive the Holy Spirit, “for as yet, he was fallen upon none of them; only they had been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 8:14-16). Baptism “in the name of the Lord Jesus” is in water (Acts 10:47,48) and is “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38).

Holy Spirit baptism was never administered “in the name of the Lord Jesus,” and it was never “for the remission of sins” or “into the one body.” The Spirit, through the word, commands men to be baptized into Christ. When we obey that word, it is “by the Spirit” that we are baptized in water into the body of Christ.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 13, p. 389
July 2, 1992

By Lewis Willis

I receive a lot of things in the mail that I do not request. I do take the time to scan most of it. I recently received a paper edited by Alfred Mielke which I had not requested. It says it came from “Christ’s Church of Wis. Rapids, 1550 West Grand Ave., Wis. Rapids, Wis. 54494.” The first issue that I received asked, “CARS, ARE THEY FOR CHRISTIANS?” I must tell you candidly that I do not really know what Mielke’s position is on this question. It appears that he thinks that it is a sin for a Christian to own a car, But then, reading further, it seems that he condemn’s the sinful use of a car. This latter point, from his article, seems to be a possible objection to his position, which he has under consideration. I suppose it is not a good idea to review something that is not understandable, but I have some thoughts I would like to share. The reasons he

gives for a, car being sinful could be raised regarding numbers of questions, such as, “Is it a sin for Christians to publish papers such as his.” I have put his “reasons” why cars are sinful on the left and why his paper would be sinful for the same “reasons” on the right.

CARS	RELIGIOUS PAPERS
1. It has been proven to kill more people than anything else.	1. Some papers have spiritually killed more people than anything.
2. It causes more young men and women to go sexually wrong.	2. Some papers cause more young men and women to go spiritually wrong.
3. It is one of the prime causes of our unhealthy environment.	3. Some papers are one of the prime causes of our unhealthy spiritual environment.
4. It causes sin because of speeding and other law breaking actions.	4. Some papers cause sin because of false doctrine and other law breaking actions.
5. It has been shown to corrupt good morals.	5. Some papers have been shown to corrupt good spirituality.
6. It can cause pride and covetousness.	6. Some papers can cause pride and covetousness.
7. Because so many people sin with the car, we become hardened to sin.	7. Because so many people sin with some papers, we become hardened to sin.
8. Money used to buy the car could have been used to feed the poor.	8. Money used to publish some papers could have been used to feed the poor.
9. It is not a necessity, but a luxury that most of the world lives without, or can’t have.  With all these facts and more, how could any right thinking person not see the sins such an action of owning and driving a car can bring on our young and old alike?	9. Papers are not a necessity, but a luxury that most of the world lives without, or can’t have.   With all these facts, and more, how could any right thinking person not see the sins such an action of owning and publishing a paper can bring on our young and old alike?

Several years ago brethren in debate used to tell their opponents, “That which proves too much, proves nothing at all.” This gentlemen’s position proves too much.

If this were not bad enough, the next issue of his paper that he sent was designed to prove that women were to refrain from any sound at all during the worship. We have all known for some time that women are not permitted to preach (1Cor. 14:34-35). His point was that “keep silence” prohibits a woman from even singing in the worship. Paul taught us all to teach and admonish with singing (Col. 3:16), but this fellow is not going to permit women to do what Paul said, charging that such is a commandment of man. I wonder if it would be acceptable with him for a woman to confess her faith in Christ during the course of an assembly. If so, how can she confess “with the mouth” her faith in Christ, and remain silent at the same time? “That which proves too much. . . “

This entire matter illustrates for us once again how important it is that we not accept every doctrine we hear, but that we test them to determine if they are so (1 Jn. 4:1). Otherwise, we are in danger of following blind leaders all the way to the ditch (Matt. 15:14).

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 13, p. 397
July 2, 1992

By Louis J. Sharp

In defense of his integrity, Job makes an astonishing statement in chapter 31, verse 1: “I made a covenant with mine eyes; why then should I think upon a maid?” (KJV) A.R. Fausset remarks: “In this chapter he vindicates his character in private life.” He says “think -cast a (lustful) look. . . He not merely did not so, but put it out of the question by covenanting with his eyes against leading him into temptation.” He refers to Proverbs 6:25: “Do not lust after her beauty in your heart, nor let her allure you with her eyelids” (NKJ) [Jamieson, Fausset, Brown, Vol. II; p. 73]. Thus, the rendering of the NIV: “I made a covenant with my eyes not to look lustfully at a girl.

The NKJV likewise supports this rendering: “I have made a covenant with my eyes; why then should I look upon a young woman?” Clarke offers this thought. “My conscience and my eyes are the contracting parties; God is the Judge; and I am therefore bound not to look upon anything with a delighted or covetous eye, by which my conscience may be defiled, or my God dishonored” (Clark’s Commentary, Vol. III; p. 136).

Joseph S. Excell states: “The covenant must have been with himself. Job means that he came to a fixed resolution, by which he thenceforth guided his conduct, not even to ‘look upon a woman to lust after her’ (Matt. 5:28). We must suppose this resolution came to in his early youth, when the passions are strongest, and when so many men go astray” (Pulpit Commentary, p. 499). “Having made such a resolution, how could I possibly break it by ‘looking upon a maid?’ Job assumes that he could not be so weak as to break a solemn resolution” (Ibid., p. 499).

Several excellent lessons are brought to our attention by these brief comments. (1) The value of virtuous resolutions; (2) The exercise of self-control in one’s life; (3) Covenants made are not to be broken; (4) The covenant one makes with oneself (in our text), with one’s eyes.

Our eyes are expressive – they do speak – they reveal much about a person. I recall my mother always demanded that I “look her in the eye” when she questioned some story I was relating and she did not believe. Somehow or other, I could not lie while “looking her in the eye.” In her own way, she was instilling in me a lesson of truthfulness. In a sense, I was “covenanting with my eyes.” This may seem a little far-fetched, but it does illustrate the value of eye-contact!

In Scripture we do read of lustful eyes. 1 John 2:16: “For all that [is] in the world – . . . the lust of the eyes, – is not of the Father. . .” And the evil eye (Pro. 28:22): “He that hasteth to be rich (hath) an evil eye.” Solomon spoke of an eye “not satisfied with seeing” (Eccl. 1:8). At another time, Job asked: “Hast thou eyes of flesh? or seest thou as man seeth?” (Job 10:4) And in Proverbs 27:20, Solomon says: “Hell and destruction are never full; so the eyes of man are never satisfied.” This shows how praiseworthy the covenant Job had made with his eyes.

Our Lord’s teaching concerning adulterous eyes needs to be a part of this study. Said He: “But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell” (Matt. 5:28-29) Thus, we learn that the covenant Job had made with his eyes comports with the teaching of Jesus centuries later.

Is it any wonder that God had such a high regard for his servant Job? In chapter 1:8, he asks Satan: “Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?” If we direct our lives and our steps as Job, we too will be called “the faithful servant of God.” “In all this Job sinned not, nor charged God foolishly” (Job 1:22). Have you made a “covenant with your eyes?”

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 13, p. 399

By Phil T.Arnold

A Landmark Missionary Baptist publication entitled The Baptist World has a monthly feature entitled, “What Baptists Believe.” In an article concerning baptism under the subheading “What Is Scriptural Baptism?”, the article states that there are four essentials for scriptural baptism. The very first of these being “the candidate for baptism must be a saved person.” Is baptism for the saved or is it for the sinner?

The condition of the sinner in God’s sight is set forth very plainly in the Scriptures. The sinner is lost and without salvation. He lives his life in iniquity and gropes in darkness. He exists in this world without God (separated by his own sins), without Christ, and as a result without hope. Who will deny that this is the condition of the sinner (Jn. 12:46; Rom. 3:23; Eph. 2:12; Rom. 6:23; Isa. 59:1,2)?

On the other hand, what is the condition of the saved? The man who is saved has salvation. He has had his sins forgiven and washed away. He has been redeemed in Christ and through Christ he has become a new creature. The saved individual has been justified by the blood of the Lamb and is freed from the power of sin (2 Cor. 5:17; 2 Tim. 2:10; Eph. 1:7; Rom. 5:9; 6:22).

Now, which of those two individuals is in need of receiving baptism – the sinner or the saved? To find the proper answer to that question, simply lay aside any pre-conceived ideas which you might have, turn away from the doctrines and teachings of men, and sit down with your Bible and see what purposes are ascribed to baptism. When you do this, I think the answer will be clear and simplicity can be restored to Mark 16:16 which says, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be damned. ” Where did Jesus place salvation? Before or after baptism? Is baptism then for the saved or sinner?

What does the Bible teach about the purposes of baptism? The Bible teaches that baptism is for salvation. “The like figure whereunto even baptism does also now save us” (1 Pet. 3:21). Baptism is for the remission of sins, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. . . ” (Acts 2:38). Baptism washes away sins. “Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins . . . (Acts 22:16). Beyond this the Bible reveals that baptism puts one into Christ and into his death where his blood was shed (Rom. 6:3-5). Those who are baptized have obeyed the form of doctrine which frees them from sin and allows them to begin a new life having put on Christ (Rom. 6:17,18; 2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 3:27). The sinner is in need of all these things which are attributed to baptism, and the saved person already is in possession of all that the Bible attributes to baptism. The sinner can and should be baptized to receive the promises which accompany it. But why baptize a man who already has these promises? What is it that baptism can do for the saved?

If a candidate for baptism “must be a saved person,” then the N.T. uses some strange language in reference to these individuals. It calls upon them to be baptized ‘!for the remission of sins” and that they might “wash away thy sins.” This is confusing language to use to one who is a “saved person.” Such statements could only be made to an unsaved person.

The Lord in Mark 16:16 did not teach that a “candidate for baptism must be a saved person” and neither does any other Bible passage. To agree with the doctrine and beliefs of many, Mark 16:16 must be changed to eliminate conflict. To satisfy them it must read, “He that believeth is saved and then he can be scripturally baptized.” The very obvious difficulty with this is simply that this is not what Jesus said. Jesus harbored no thought of salvation being a requirement for scriptural baptism, for he declared that the exact opposite is true.

Leave Mark 16:16 and all of the gospel in its simplicity. Do not be guilty of making it confusing. Accept it for what it says, and render obedience. Be baptized and be saved! For “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mk.16:16).

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 13, p. 395
July 2, 1992