Quote:
Originally Posted by BeenThinkin
But your explanations are missing my point. If baptism was so important, ( and I believe it is important) as to be a heaven or hell issue, I think it would have been better for Paul not to have said the things he said. I wasn't sent to baptize sounds like it wasn't as important to Paul as present day Pentecostals have made it. He couldn't even remember how many he had baptized. Present day preachers keep a long list of how many got baptized in their revival. The churches post at the end of the year how many were baptized that year. That's good. But Paul didn't seem to place that much importance on it. Why? And yes, I heard some of your explanations, but they seemed rather flimsy to me! Just my opinion!
Someone said we need to keep "the main thing, the main thing", and it would seem to be that Paul was putting much more importance on the cross, than a 3 step plan of salvation, that he was not sent to do part of. To me the "main thing" was not a 3 step plan but the preaching of the cross!
What say you? And thanks for responding.
Been Thinkin
|
Do you think he might have been following the example of John the Baptist, who was doing the baptizing while Jesus was ministering?
Paul seems to have entrusted that act to those that were connected to the churches.