Leithart's Presupposition.

This evening at our regular Bible study we looked at 1 Corinthians 12 v12-31. The opening verses contain a reference to baptism which the commentator Peter J Leithart asserts should normally be taken to mean literal WATER baptism unless that makes a nonsense of the text.

If that presupposition is accepted then a number of conclusions follow which we discussed last week in the "Federal Vision" blog. For Leithart Water Baptism inducts people into the covenant people of God and fills them with the Holy Spirit; they are regenerate, 'born again' and justified: but in the final analysis not necessarily saved.

As an exercise I thought that I would examine the 'baptism texts' as they arise in the normal course of life and see how they square up against Leithart's presupposition. Tonight's Bible reading is here by reason that it is simply the next in the sequence of readings. (Actually this isn't quite true because on Sunday morning the reading included Mark 10 v35-44 which everyone takes to be a metaphor!)

Tonight's passage happens to be is 1 Corinthians 12 v12-31, for our purpose we will be looking at verse 13 "for we are all baptised by one Spirit into one body - whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free - we are all given the one Spirit to drink." Let's test this with Leithart's presupposition which would insist that this passage refers to the unity of all believers, across racial and social divides, on the basis of the shared experience of WATER baptism.

"All baptised by one spirit" doesn't sound like the agency of a Church minister - besides which what would constitute a 'valid' sacrament if it was? Everyone would end up bickering about how it was done and by whom... hmmm... actually could that be the issue in 1 Cor 1 v13-16?

"Given one Spirit to drink"; metaphor or literal? Certainly sounds like a metaphor. One does not drink baptismal water - at least I didn't! If that is a metaphor then it's probable the baptism reference is too, we certainly cannot dogmatise that it is literal. Surely the whole point Paul is stressing is the spiritual unity of the Corinthian church above and beyond outward show!

No? Okay. Could the passage be referring to water baptism and communion? I could be wrong but I don't recall any Bible passage linking the consumption of the Spirit with the Lord's Supper. However Leithart does link this passage with 10 v2 where God's people are said to have been baptised into Moses as they crossed the Red Sea and to have drunk from the rock that is Christ. But the problem there is that 10 v2 is set up as an example NOT to follow, the passage is making an analogy which - if anything - completely undermines confidence in sacramental assurance....hmmm... if anything perhaps that is Paul's point!?

I played "devil's advocate" in our Bible study group and pressed Leithart's presupposition. Our group are not a bunch of twenty-somethings living in an academic hot house but a fair cross section of ages, social backgrounds and, prior to conversion, a variety of religious backgrounds.... hmmmm... exactly the type of people 1 Corinthians was actually written for! (I'm sure they won't mind me saying that!)

Water baptism was politely considered but the unanimous opinion was that made absolutely no sense of the text. If Paul was appealing to a highly developed sacramental basis for the life of their church community a la Leithart and that water baptism was THE way in to new life in Christ why does Paul say "Christ did NOT send me to Baptise, but to preach the gospel...not with words of human wisdom, lest the Cross of Christ be emptied of its power"? 1 Cor 1 v17. Hmmm... good point!