Is baptism essential unto salvation?

[clgustaveson]

Oh, but this scripture from that site caught my eye 1 Corinthians 1:12-17 why would Paul proclaim he wasn't sent to baptize, only to preach if Baptism is essential to salvation why wouldn't Paul offer a full service salvation plan?

[Sam]

Originally Posted by clgustaveson

Oh, but this scripture from that site caught my eye 1 Corinthians 1:12-17 why would Paul proclaim he wasn't sent to baptize, only to preach if Baptism is essential to salvation why wouldn't Paul offer a full service salvation plan?

For a couple of reasons:
1. Jewish people were often baptized under a rabbi's ministry. Jewish baptism was a self-immersion three times in water and was "witnessed" by a rabbi or his designee. Jewish baptism was called a "mikveh." Those who underwent the mikveh "cleansing" were said to have been baptized in the name of their rabbi. Paul did not want people dividing up around leaders/teachers/preachers/rabbis so he did not make a big deal about baptism. As was the custom in the early church, converts were immersed (or they self-immersed) right after conversion. This is seen in early New Testament records in the Book of Acts. So, folks did get baptized under the ministry of Paul but he did not want his name associated with their baptism. He wanted them to be devoted to Jesus instead of to a particular church or leader. So, they were said to have been baptized "in the name of Jesus the Messiah" instead of in the name of a leader/teacher/pastor/etc.

2. Paul considered it his calling and primary goal to preach salvation/deliverance. Water baptism was an important ritual carried over from Judaism, through Rabbi John the Baptist and then through Rabbi Jesus and then incorporated in the early church, but was secondary in importance to salvation/conversion which was by faith.

[clgustaveson]

Originally Posted by Sam

For a couple of reasons:
1. Jewish people were often baptized under a rabbi's ministry. Jewish baptism was a self-immersion three times in water and was "witnessed" by a rabbi or his designee. Jewish baptism was called a "mikveh." Those who underwent the mikveh "cleansing" were said to have been baptized in the name of their rabbi. Paul did not want people dividing up around leaders/teachers/preachers/rabbis so he did not make a big deal about baptism. As was the custom in the early church, converts were immersed (or they self-immersed) right after conversion. This is seen in early New Testament records in the Book of Acts. So, folks did get baptized under the ministry of Paul but he did not want his name associated with their baptism. He wanted them to be devoted to Jesus instead of to a particular church or leader. So, they were said to have been baptized "in the name of Jesus the Messiah" instead of in the name of a leader/teacher/pastor/etc.

2. Paul considered it his calling and primary goal to preach salvation/deliverance. Water baptism was an important ritual carried over from Judaism, through Rabbi John the Baptist and then through Rabbi Jesus and then incorporated in the early church, but was secondary in importance to salvation/conversion which was by faith.

What is your point?

[Sam]

Originally Posted by clgustaveson

What is your point?

My post was in response to a post asking why Paul said he was not sent to baptize but to preach the Gospel.