In vs. 14 of 1 Corinthians 1, Paul thanked God that he baptized none of the Corinthians, except for a few. Then in vs. 17, he wrote, "For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel:" Doesn't this show that Paul understood that "baptism" was not a requirement for salvation, and further, that baptism should not become a divisive issue among the brethren?
A: Paul "did" thank God that he did not baptize but just a few of the Corinthians; however, Paul never discounted baptism as a requirement in the salvation process. When the context of 1 Corinthians is kept throughout the reading (1Corinthians 1:10-17), we see that Paul's concern was not with "baptism" causing division, but rather "who baptized the Corinthians" was causing the contention.
Note 1Corinthians 1:12: Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. This passage reveals that the problem was not with baptism, but rather with the special recognition being given to the individuals who were assisting the Corinthians in their conversion to Christ. There are some religious organizations today who give or heap special recognition upon their leaders, which is unauthorized by the scriptures. Paul warned the Corinthians to avoid the special recognition of men, not baptism. Jesus Christ, alone, is worthy of honor and glory and praise (Acts 4:12).
In 1 Corinthians 1:14, Paul gives specific reason as to why he was glad that he had only baptized Crispus and Gaius. Let's look at the scripture again. I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; Lest any should say that I had baptized "in mine own name". Note that Paul did not say, "Lest any should say that I baptized."
Paul desired only that Jesus Christ receive the glory and honor.
When considering 1Corinthians 1:17, "For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel:", we must not change Paul's true intentions of his words. Was Paul saying that he was not supposed to baptize, or was he simply stating his primary service in the Lord's kingdom? The scriptures make it clear that it was the latter. Please note the following:
Was Paul not to baptize?
If Paul was not to baptize, surely, he overstepped the authority of Jesus, in this matter. For he baptized not only Crispus and Gaius, but also the entire household of Stephanos, and this was just of the Corinthians. Was Paul admitting that he had openly rebelled against the Lord's command to "not baptize"? This argument (that Paul was against baptism in the salvation process) does not hold up under the weight of the scriptures.
Did Jesus forbid baptism?
The scriptures clearly indicate the opposite. In fact, Jesus, himself, arranged the meeting between Saul and Ananias, so that Saul could be instructed to be baptized (Acts 9:6; 22:16). Jesus taught the necessity of baptism, to be saved (Mark 16:16).
A passage of scripture, involving the Lord himself, may help. In John 4:1-2, the scripture reads, When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,) From this scripture, we can see that even though Jesus himself did not physically baptize those who were becoming disciples, it is clear, that baptism was commanded by the Lord. Paul, in the same manner, taught the necessity of baptism in salvation (Romans 6: 3-7), even though he said, in 1Corinthians 1, that he only baptized a few.
What can we be certain of?
Paul baptized at least 4 Corinthians. Crispus, Gaius, Stephanos and his household. 1Corinthians 1
Paul was instructed to "be baptized" and "wash away his sins". Acts 22:16
What must we be careful of?
We must beware of doctrines that teach differently than what the scriptures actually reveal. 2John 1:9-11
Do you have a question? Please email your question to: Copyright 2005 haveyoucalled.com
