Christ Did Not Send Me to Baptize?

[COOPER]

Pretty much self explanatory:

Were you baptized into the name of Paul? 14 I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 So no one can say that you were baptized into my name.

And he did Baptize

Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.)

It sounds like some of the Saints were getting caught up in the Men of God and their Celebrity rather than Jesus.

Paul did not want anyone to Brag about who baptized them and develop clichés

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Alter Ego

But other than the house of Stephanas and two other men, he never baptized anyone else...why?

Why didn't Paul baptize?

There were many situations where it was just Paul and a crowd of unbelievers. There weren't any other believers around to help him baptize. Why, after preaching the gospel, were there no baptismal candidates?

We can't assume that they were not baptized ... There were other elders/pastors in the city that he may have deferred to ... as a "traveling evangelist and apostle".

[Jehoram]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

I don't think he neglected baptism. He baptized the jailer the same night he believed in the Gospel of Jesus Christ ...

but he did not teach baptismal regeneration nor did the other apostles.

Apparently he did.

The house of Stephanas and two others.

That's slim pickin's considering the thousands he preached to.

Would Paul be accepted in Apostolic ranks today?

What's up with this?

[Jehoram]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

We can't assume that they were not baptized ... There were other elders/pastors in the city that he may have deferred to ... as a "traveling evangelist and apostle".

We can't assume anything. We can't assume they were baptized either, right?

You are hypothesizing.

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

That's because in Jewish ritual baptisms one was baptized by the authority of the given teacher they were following ...
Some sectarians were now claiming to be disciples of Paul ... Apollos and Cephas ... Paul was simply reminding them under whose authority and power they had been baptized under.

In baptism we publicly declare to be His disciples.

Exactly! I believe that's why so much emphasis was given about "the name".

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Alter Ego

Apparently he did.

The house of Stephanas and two others.

That's slim pickin's considering the thousands he preached to.

Would Paul be accepted in Apostolic ranks today?

What's up with this?

He chose to do those ... we don't know why ...

However, it's clear he taught and practiced water baptism ...

but as stated before and by Cooper ... He most likely did not want believers to "idolize" him ... or claim they were disciples of Paul ... he believed in th ministry of the entire body ... the priesthood of all saints.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Alter Ego

We can't assume anything. We can't assume they were baptized either, right?

You are hypothesizing.

There is more to infer from his practice and teachings that he believed, preached and practiced it ...

And the passage you provided shows us that he was concerned about celebrity worship.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

Exactly! I believe that's why so much emphasis was given about "the name".

The name always conveyed the whole person and their authority and power.

Some have placed the incantation of the name to be salvific.

[Jehoram]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

I think it's pretty easy -he's telling them it's not WHO baptizes you, but who's NAME you are baptized with. So, him saying I didn't come to baptize you in Paul's name, but to preach the gospel is simple.......it's not about him, but - - repent, be baptized in Jesus' name.

But if Dan is correct, and Paul only preached the gospel of Jesus' death, burial and resurrection.......that would mean Paul was saying God had not called him to tell the lost about repentance, baptism and the Holy Ghost.

How can we separate the Gospel and the response?

Why would Paul only retell the story without mentioning how to respond?

Was Paul a "saved at faith" teacher?

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

He chose to do those ... we don't know why ...

However, it's clear he taught and practiced water baptism ...

but as stated before and by Cooper ... He most likely did not want believers to "idolize" him ... or claim they were disciples of Paul ... he believed in th ministry of the entire body ... the priesthood of all saints.

I agree. I think this is a logical explanation of the passage. He sounds like he's being facetious, trying to make a point, and I certainly can't draw the conclusion that the point he was making is that baptism is unimportant, considering the context of other scriptures.

Paul did teach on baptism:

Colossians 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

Romans 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

Romans 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Romans 6:5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

Acts 19:3-6 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.