Christ Did Not Send Me to Baptize?

[MissBrattified]

I don't know if I'm right or not. LOL. I'm just suppositioning (is that a word?) right along with you.

[BrotherEastman]

Originally Posted by Alter Ego

Look at what he said again.


"I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius,

For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel"

So what? Paul didn't say that baptism wasn't necessary, he just said what you stated, not what you're reading into.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Alter Ego

I think you are right. It is odd, however, that Paul never mentions baptism in his sermons. Maybe he waited until there was a declaration of faith before baptism was offered? That is the only thing I can think of.

Some focus on the proper administration of a baptism to cause salvation while the apostles were concerned w/ genuine faith in the Gospel of Jesus Christ ... a repentant heart that will result in a believer desiring to obey the mandate of baptism.

This was and is the Apostolic doctrine.

[Pressing-On]

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.

I haven't read all of this thread, thus far, but are you saying Paul is showing a difference and seperation in the law and the NT Covenant per the above boldened statement.?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Alter Ego

What is the meaning of this passage?

Why did Paul say that Christ had not sent him to baptize? In verse 17, Is Paul separating baptism from "the Gospel?" What is your interpretation?

10 I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. 11My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas"; still another, "I follow Christ."
13Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? 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. 16(Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.) 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

AE,
Going further up in the scripture you are citing here I'm wondering what Paul means by this portion of scripture.

I Cor 1:5-7 "That in every thing ye are enriched by him, in all utterance, and in all knowledge; (6) Even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you: (7) So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ:"

What was the "testimony of Christ" confirmed in him? It seems like it had to have been something that was visibly seen. In order NOT to come behind in any gift from God, he had to have this testimony.

He says in verse 7 - "....waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ."

Col 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."

It appears that he can't make heaven if he isn't baptized.

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by Alter Ego

What is the meaning of this passage?

Why did Paul say that Christ had not sent him to baptize? In verse 17, Is Paul separating baptism from "the Gospel?" What is your interpretation?

Originally Posted by Alter Ego

... I am baffled by Paul's words here. And by the sparse record of his involvement in baptisms in general. Especially considering the thousands upon thousands of souls he preached to.

Emphasis on one does not negate the other. It's more a question of emphasis than anything else. And Paul's emphasis was clearly on preaching. Thus he says he is called to preach, not to baptize. This is not to say that baptism is separate from the gospel. Even in the first utterance of the gospel, baptism was a central part of the gospel message ("repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus".. Acts 2:38)

Also...(he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved ... Mark 16:16)/ (Baptism doth also save us ... 1 Pet 3:21)./ (arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord Acts 22:16)

----
Keep in mind, for example... many times when an evangelist comes into town and preaches a revival, perhaps dozens, even hundreds, will end up being baptized, but often it is not the evangelist that does the baptizing. There are often many other deacons, elders, or other church workers who handle the actual baptisms. Just as with Paul, the evangelist's main calling is to preach, not necessarily to conduct the actual baptisms that will take place afterward.

[Joelel]

Originally Posted by Alter Ego

What is the meaning of this passage?

Why did Paul say that Christ had not sent him to baptize? In verse 17, Is Paul separating baptism from "the Gospel?" What is your interpretation?

10 I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. 11My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas"; still another, "I follow Christ."
13Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? 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. 16(Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.) 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

Someone else can do it.In many assemblies the pastor don't do much baptizing.It don't have to be anyone.You can call on the name of the Lord and jump iin the water.The word don't even say someone else has to touch you.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Joelel

Someone else can do it.In many assemblies the pastor don't do much baptizing.It don't have to be anyone.You can call on the name of the Lord and jump iin the water.The word don't even say someone else has to touch you.

Joel!! This guy visited our church and I don't know why they asked him to testify!

He said, "Well, I've been baptized three times. One time in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Second time in Jesus name and the third time I took it upon myself and jumped in the creek."

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Alter Ego

"For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel"

Is Paul separating baptism from the gospel?

Not necessarily. He is separating prioties and actions. In Acts the immediate response to hearing the gospel was repentance and baptism and Paul DID indeed baptize people.

How can they be baptized if they have not heard?

[berkeley]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Not necessarily. He is separating prioties and actions. In Acts the immediate response to hearing the gospel was repentance and baptism and Paul DID indeed baptize people.

How can they be baptized if they have not heard?

Get a job, would ya?