Why did Paul say this? like this?

[Pressing-On]

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.

[Apprehended]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

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.

Of course.

An visiting minister will not usually do the baptizing. He's going to leave it up to the Pastors or whoever it is that has charge of the local assembly. That would be proper order. Paul understood that.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Apprehended

Of course.

An visiting minister will not usually do the baptizing. He's going to leave it up to the Pastors or whoever it is that has charge of the local assembly. That would be proper order. Paul understood that.

And makes the thought complete with what you posted:

Originally Posted by Apprehended

Some were saying that they were of Paul and others were saying that they were of Apollos. It seems that there was a hefty dose of "preacher religion" back in those days too. Paul was simply trying to disavow himself from being an object of adoration in that sense. I am proud of the fact that the venerable George L. Glass Sr. baptized me when I was still quite young after having received the Holy Ghost under a tent during a revival preached by W.E. Gamblin in 1947. Though I am happy for my heritage, many boast in their spiritual pedigree. Paul did not think that was important and could be deceptive.

[Austin]

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

I'm sorry. I thought you were asking for an explanation of why Paul said it. As far as making any comment on whether baptism is important for salvation, My personal stand is. Why would anyone not want to. With me it isn't an issue reflected to salvation and never should have ever been discussed or debated as such by any man of God any where or at any time through out history, I mean that even if it were the apostle Paul debating it. Our Lord said teach it, preach it, and if people believe then baptism them in his authority of the New Testament which is written with his name across it.
Endless issue. If someone came to me and said; Do I need to be baptised in Jesus name to be saved. I would reply, isn't that what He told you to do if you believed in Him? Why take away from the scriptures here and there. If you start cutting out pages of scriptures then in time there won't be a bible at all. I'm sorry not trying to be smart,I'm not a UPC but I believe in baptism in Jesus name because it's his covenant that I am joined to with his testomony binding it together.Everything I do I do in His name, and everything I own has His name on it.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Apprehended

Some were saying that they were of Paul and others were saying that they were of Apollos. It seems that there was a hefty dose of "preacher religion" back in those days too. Paul was simply trying to disavow himself from being an object of adoration in that sense. I am proud of the fact that the venerable George L. Glass Sr. baptized me when I was still quite young after having received the Holy Ghost under a tent during a revival preached by W.E. Gamblin in 1947. Though I am happy for my heritage, many boast in their spiritual pedigree. Paul did not think that was important and could be deceptive.

George L. Glass Sr. and W.E. Gamblin?
weren't they both one-steppers?

[Sam]

Originally Posted by BeenThinkin

If baptism is one of the steps of the 3 step plan of salvation why did Christ not send Paul to do it?

1 Corinthians 1:14* ¶ I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
15* Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
16* And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
17* ¶ For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

Why would Paul be go glad that he baptized so few?

Why didn't he make it as important as many make it today?

Am I wrong, (shouldn't have asked that on AFF), but doesn't it seem strange how Paul talked so nonchalantly about baptism if it is in fact a part of a 3 step plan?

Been Thinkin

The main thing is salvation.
Water baptism is important but is secondary to salvation.
The main thing was getting people saved. Then, upon their profession of faith, they could be water baptized.
The church at Corinth was splitting up into cliques and placing too much emphasis on different preachers. Some were proud that they had been baptized by Paul himself and considered that a badge of honor and considered themselves higher level Christians than those who had been baptized by someone else.

[Apprehended]

Originally Posted by Sam

George L. Glass Sr. and W.E. Gamblin?
weren't they both one-steppers?

Most certainly not W.E. Gamblin. Some have tried to imply that Glass was since he initially came out of the PCI. I've heard him deny the one-step plan and strongly preach the WHOLE counsel of God. In fact, not too many months ago I found an old cassette tape of him preaching. I dug in a closet and found an old tape machine and listened to it. It was a blessing. He strongly preached Acts 2:38 entitled, "God Gives Every Man and Equal Chance." Powerful message that only a master preacher could preach.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by BeenThinkin

If baptism is one of the steps of the 3 step plan of salvation why did Christ not send Paul to do it?

1 Corinthians 1:14* ¶ I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
15* Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
16* And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
17* ¶ For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

Why would Paul be go glad that he baptized so few?

Why didn't he make it as important as many make it today?

Am I wrong, (shouldn't have asked that on AFF), but doesn't it seem strange how Paul talked so nonchalantly about baptism if it is in fact a part of a 3 step plan?

Been Thinkin

I don't think he was saying baptism was unimportant. I think Paul was saying that it wasn't important that HE baptize them. He was saying that he left it up to other people.

Do you really think that he was saying, "I'm so glad I didn't baptize any of you, except for Crispus and Gaius, because baptism is totally unimportant--or at least less important than preaching the Gospel."?

Here's a different question: If Christ didn't send Paul to baptize people, then why did he baptize Crispus, Gaius and the household of Stephanas anyway? Maybe he had to, because he was the only one available?

[Apprehended]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

I don't think he was saying baptism was unimportant. I think Paul was saying that it wasn't important that HE baptize them. He was saying that he left it up to other people.

Do you really think that he was saying, "I'm so glad I didn't baptize any of you, except for Crispus and Gaius, because baptism is totally unimportant--or at least less important than preaching the Gospel."?

Here's a different question: If Christ didn't send Paul to baptize people, then why did he baptize Crispus, Gaius and the household of Stephanas anyway? Maybe he had to, because he was the only one available?

Excellent point.

"The word "and" is almost always a conjunctive. Paul certainly knew that Jesus had said, "He that believeth

AND...

is baptized shall be saved.

But, he that believeth not...no sense in being baptized is it? They will be damned.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by BeenThinkin

If baptism is one of the steps of the 3 step plan of salvation why did Christ not send Paul to do it?

1 Corinthians 1:14* ¶ I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
15* Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
16* And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
17* ¶ For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

Why would Paul be go glad that he baptized so few?

Why didn't he make it as important as many make it today?

Am I wrong, (shouldn't have asked that on AFF), but doesn't it seem strange how Paul talked so nonchalantly about baptism if it is in fact a part of a 3 step plan?

Been Thinkin

Context is everything
1Co 1:11 For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brothers, by those of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
1Co 1:12 But I say this, that every one of you says, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ.
1Co 1:13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you, or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
1Co 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,
1Co 1:15 lest any should say that I had baptized in my own name.
1Co 1:16 And I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides these, I do not know if I baptized any other.
1Co 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel; not in wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.

It was related to the contention in the Corinthian church. Some of them were arrogantly claiming to be disciples of Paul. Baptism was seen as an act of discipleship. John the baptist baptized his followers and made them "disciples of John"...

That is also why we baptize in Jesus name. We are making them disciples of Christ by proxy...baptizing them in His place. Paul did not want any part of that foolishness,which is why he was glad he had not baptized any of them