Debating Indwelling, Sainthood, and the Right Division of Paul

When two people both care about rightly dividing Scripture but reach different conclusions, that tension can be useful rather than merely frustrating. Right division itself is not laid out in a neat checklist; 2 Timothy 2:15 commands us to “rightly divide the word of truth,” but it does not spell out all the divisions for us. So there will be honest differences among those who are trying to obey that verse.

Because of that, you should not assume that every disagreement with a “rightly dividing” teacher proves one side must be completely unfaithful. Differences over how and where to divide can help sharpen both parties. At the same time, some differences expose more fundamental issues, such as whether Paul’s writings are themselves being rightly divided.

On the two issues you raise—the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and whether we today are “saints”—your teacher’s position is much more common in right-dividing circles than yours. Most mid-Acts or broadly dispensational teachers will affirm that believers today are indwelt by the Spirit and that we are saints. I would venture that many of my own right-dividing friends would side with your teacher rather than with me on these two points. Nevertheless, I agree with your conclusions, though not everyone will share that view.

How to engage your teacher on the indwelling of the Spirit

If you want to work through this with your teacher, the key is to insist on careful exegesis and grammar, not on inherited assumptions.

A practical approach is to ask your teacher to show you, from Scripture, where the doctrine of the Spirit’s indwelling of believers in this present dispensation is taught. Then, rather than immediately arguing, walk through the actual texts and their contexts with him.

Many will go first to passages such as John 14:16–17: “he shall be in you.” Any teacher who is even moderately dispensational knows that this is part of Jesus’ upper-room discourse given to the apostles under the law, in a kingdom context. If they are consistent in their dispensationalism, they should admit that you cannot build church-age doctrine on those words without careful qualification. If they insist on using John 14 as a direct description of us, they are already blurring Israel-church distinctions and pulling away from their own claim to rightly divide.

More sophisticated arguments will go to Paul:

• 1 Corinthians 6:19 “your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost”
• Romans 8:9–11 “if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his”

These passages demand very close attention to grammar and context.

1 Corinthians 6:19 and the plural “your”

In 1 Corinthians 6:19, the King James text reads:

"What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?"

Here “your” is plural and “body” is singular. If Paul meant “each individual physical body,” good grammar would say, “your bodies are the temples of the Holy Ghost.” Instead, he uses a singular “body” with a plural possessive. This is not sloppy Greek; it is deliberate.

That strongly suggests he is speaking corporately of a single body belonging to the group addressed (“your [collective] body”), not of each individual’s physical body as a separate temple. In a Jewish context, that “body” language naturally evokes Israel as a national entity or a corporate temple-people, not the private interior of each person’s chest.

If your teacher insists this is talking about each believer’s individual physical body as a temple, he is ignoring the grammar. If the Bible’s grammar is untrustworthy here, then we cannot use grammar anywhere to build doctrine. A consistent literalist must respect the plural–singular distinction and ask whether Paul might be speaking of a corporate body (for example, the Corinthian assembly as a temple, or even Israel as the temple-people) rather than proving the personal “indwelling” doctrine as commonly articulated.

Romans 8:9–11 and “having the Spirit”

In Romans 8:9–11 we read, for example:

"Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his."

That certainly teaches that belonging to Christ and “having the Spirit” go together. I affirm that we have the Spirit. The question is whether this text teaches the specific, detailed doctrine of “indwelling” as popularly defined: that the Spirit takes up residence inside the individual believer in a way identical to what was promised to the apostles and to Israel under the New Covenant.

The text says “have the Spirit,” not “are indwelt in the same manner as the apostolic band at Pentecost” or “are the temples of the Spirit individually.” To move from “have the Spirit” to a full-blown doctrine of indwelling—often conflating indwelling, sealing, baptism, filling, and anointing—is to go beyond what this passage explicitly states. Many evangelicals blur distinct ministries of the Spirit and then read all of them into every verse that mentions the Spirit and believers together.

If your teacher builds a detailed doctrine of personal indwelling from Romans 8, he may be teaching more than the text itself warrants. A sound principle is that we must not claim more than Scripture actually says.

The deeper issue: flattening Paul

Behind these differences stands a more foundational question: does your teacher “rightly divide Paul,” or does he treat Romans through Philemon as a flat, homogeneous block, all directly about the same group under the same terms?

A very common simplification among right dividers is the slogan, “Romans through Philemon is ours.” There is truth in that at the broadest level, but if used woodenly it flattens Paul’s ministry and erases important distinctions. Paul’s own testimony shows that he sometimes spoke in line with “Moses and the prophets” to Jewish audiences, in ways that cannot be about the later-revealed mystery.

In Acts 26:22 Paul says:

"Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come."

That cannot be a description of his mystery revelation. “Moses and the prophets” did not reveal the mystery of the body of Christ. So there are times in Paul’s ministry when he is speaking in a kingdom-oriented, prophetic framework to Jews under the promises and covenants of Israel.

When your teacher encounters Paul using temple or kingdom language that aligns with the Gospels or the prophets, he faces a choice: either recognize that Paul sometimes addresses Jewish, kingdom-related matters, or invent a new “invisible kingdom” or generalized “kingdom of God” that blurs Israel and the body of Christ. Many otherwise dispensational teachers, unwilling to distinguish these strands in Paul, create a theological “pancake”: all of Paul is assumed to speak about one people (the body of Christ) in one way. Israel, the little flock, kingdom hopes, and the mystery body are compressed together.

If your teacher assumes a flat Paul, he will naturally read every Pauline statement about the Spirit, temple, saints, and kingdom as directly and only about us. If you see multiple strands in Paul’s ministry, you will resist that flattening and be more cautious about claiming Israel’s promises as present church-age realities.

How this connects to the question of “saints”

The same hermeneutical issue appears in the question of whether we are “saints.” The New Testament uses “saints” in ways that need to be carefully traced, especially in light of Israel’s identity as a holy nation and the holy ones associated with kingdom promises. When Paul addresses “saints” in mixed or Jewish-heavy contexts that still have kingdom freight, we must ask: is this term functioning as a technical title rooted in Israel’s prophetic identity, or as a simple generic term for all saved persons in every age?

If your teacher has already flattened Paul and blurred Israel and the body of Christ, he will assume that every reference to “saints” is a direct description of you today. If you are distinguishing Israel’s program from the mystery, you will likely locate “saint” language differently and be reluctant to adopt it as a technical self-designation for the body of Christ. The exegetical work needed here is similar to that on the Spirit’s indwelling: follow the contexts and audiences, not inherited terminology.

Where this leaves you in practice

You asked, “What do I do now?” A few practical suggestions:

• Recognize that your teacher’s view on these two issues is widely held among right dividers. You are not likely to persuade him quickly.
• If you decide to engage, focus first on the deeper issue: whether Paul’s letters must be rightly divided within themselves. Use Acts 26:22 and the clear presence of kingdom content in some Pauline passages to open that discussion.
• When you discuss the Spirit’s indwelling, insist that arguments respect grammar and immediate context. Press gently but firmly on the plural “your” and singular “body” in 1 Corinthians 6:19, and on what Romans 8:9–11 actually says versus what is imported into it.
• Encourage him to distinguish the various ministries of the Spirit (indwelling, baptism, sealing, filling) rather than blurring them. Ask him to show precisely which text teaches which ministry for which audience.
• Be prepared that he may not be ready to “unhitch” from long-standing patterns of thought. Many teachers are strongly influenced by the theological “wagon train” they have joined; stepping away from that stream can feel risky.
• If the disagreement remains, you will need to decide whether you can continue to profit from his teaching while differing on these matters, or whether you should seek instruction from someone whose handling of Paul and of the Spirit’s ministry is closer to your convictions.

Differences between sincere right dividers are inevitable because Scripture does not hand us a prefabricated chart. Your task is to keep your conscience bound to the text, to insist that doctrine not outrun what the words and grammar actually say, and to be willing to stand somewhat alone if necessary, even if that means pulling your own wagon instead of letting a larger system pull it for you.

questiontransition