Q: Why did Paul say he didn't come to Baptize but preach the Gospel?
Paul made this comment in 1 Corinthians 1:17.
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.
It is unfortunate that many, rather than honestly studying the passage to understand what it says in truth, have jumped to this passage to try and prove the unscriptural idea that baptism is not essential for salvation. It is said, and falsely so, that since Paul was sent to preach the gospel and not to baptize then baptism must not be an essential part of the gospel.
Is Paul saying here that baptism is not part of the gospel of Christ? Or, that baptism is, at best, a non-essential part of the gospel of Christ? We can see in the immediate context that these ideas find no place in what Paul was saying. It is not surprising that the denominational world would miss the point here, as the point properly understood condemns the sectarian nature of denominationalism.
Notice:
It is important to notice also that the word "sent" in 1:17 is the same word as "apostle." The word "apostle" simply means "one sent." So Paul says here that Christ didn't make him an apostle so he could baptize people but in order to carry the gospel to the world - the unique work of the apostles (Acts 1:8; 2:42). Well, a person didn't have to be an apostle to baptize someone.
We can also see the foolishness of using Paul's statement as an attempt to negate the necessity of baptism by noticing the results of Paul's preaching throughout his ministry. If Paul's statement means that preaching the gospel does not include the necessity of baptism then where can we go to see an example of that? When people responded to what Paul preached what did they do? THEY GOT BAPTIZED!
We can start with the very ones Paul is writing to here - the Corinthians. What happened when Paul went there and preached the gospel? They were baptized! (Acts 18:8). In the very context of 1 Cor. 1:17 Paul mentions some of those whom he had baptized (1 Cor. 1:14-16). How is it then that Paul could be saying that his preaching did not include baptism? Ridiculous! He even says in this same letter (1 Corinthians) that it is by baptism that we enter into the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:13).
How many people had been saved by hearing Paul preach and being baptized? We are not told exactly but we are told of a great many. Notice, Lydia was baptized as a result of hearing Paul preach (Acts 16:14-15). The Philippian jailer is another example (Acts 16:27-34). Paul had corrected the problem with those Ephesians' baptism (Acts 19:1-5) and then later wrote to remind them that there is only one baptism (Eph. 4:5). He wrote to the Romans to remind them of how we are baptized into Christ (Rom. 6:3, 4). He wrote to the Galatians about becoming children of God by being baptized into Christ (Gal. 3:26, 27). Even in recounting his own conversion he places salvation (the washing away of his sins) at the time of his baptism (Acts 22:16).
How can someone look at all of this evidence and then claim that Paul didn't believe in the necessity of baptism? It simply cannot be so!
There can be no question that to preach the gospel of Christ includes - to a very large degree - the preaching of baptism for the remission of sins. Notice Acts 8:35, where it says that Philip preached Jesus to the Ethiopian eunuch. IN THE VERY NEXT VERSE THE EUNUCH ASKS TO BE BAPTIZED! (Acts 8:36). Now, if all Philip did was preach Jesus to him, how did the eunuch know he needed to be baptized? It is so clear - a person would need help to miss it! To preach Jesus means to preach the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus (1 Cor. 15:1-4). To preach the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus as the sacrifice for our sins is to preach the necessity of baptism (Rom. 6:3, 4). You CANNOT preach Jesus without preaching the necessity of baptism - not scripturally. So how could Paul be excluding it in 1 Cor. 1:17? Clearly, he was not.
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.
It is unfortunate that many, rather than honestly studying the passage to understand what it says in truth, have jumped to this passage to try and prove the unscriptural idea that baptism is not essential for salvation. It is said, and falsely so, that since Paul was sent to preach the gospel and not to baptize then baptism must not be an essential part of the gospel.
Is Paul saying here that baptism is not part of the gospel of Christ? Or, that baptism is, at best, a non-essential part of the gospel of Christ? We can see in the immediate context that these ideas find no place in what Paul was saying. It is not surprising that the denominational world would miss the point here, as the point properly understood condemns the sectarian nature of denominationalism.
Notice:
- In this context Paul is dealing with divisions in the church at Corinth (1:10-4:21).
- In 1:11 he says that these divisions had been reported to him.In 1:12-13 Paul refers to their unscriptural practice of dividing up according to people - of whom he uses himself, Cephas (Peter) and Apollos as example (4:6).
- In 1:14 he implies that these divisions were according to who a person had been baptized by. This is indicated when he says that he is thankful that he did not baptize any of them, except for the few mentioned (14, 16), lest they should make the false claim that he had baptized them in his own name (15).
- He is still talking about the problem of divisions when he comes to chapter 3 (3:3).
- He is still talking about the divisions when he comes to chapter to the end of chapter 4 (4:6, 17, 21).
- Notice that in 5:1 Paul begins to address another problem in the same way he began to address the problem of 1:11 - by saying "it is reported." It is very clear that he is leaving one discussion to begin another - in other words, there is a change of context.
- Now, how does noting the context help us understand what Paul is saying?
- Because we know that whatever he is saying it is for the purpose of addressing the Corinthian problem of division.
- When we put Paul's statement in the proper context it becomes very clear.
- He is not discussing the importance of baptism but the importance of unity among the brethren.
- Well, what were they being divided by? Answer - MEN (1:12, 14-15; 2:5; 3:3-4, 18, 21-23; 4:6).
- How does he address it? Answer - by emphasizing the importance of what is written rather than the one delivering the message (1:17, 18, 19, 23, 31; 2:1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10-13, 16; 3:1-2, 5, 7, 19; 4:1-2, 7, 15, 17).
It is important to notice also that the word "sent" in 1:17 is the same word as "apostle." The word "apostle" simply means "one sent." So Paul says here that Christ didn't make him an apostle so he could baptize people but in order to carry the gospel to the world - the unique work of the apostles (Acts 1:8; 2:42). Well, a person didn't have to be an apostle to baptize someone.
We can also see the foolishness of using Paul's statement as an attempt to negate the necessity of baptism by noticing the results of Paul's preaching throughout his ministry. If Paul's statement means that preaching the gospel does not include the necessity of baptism then where can we go to see an example of that? When people responded to what Paul preached what did they do? THEY GOT BAPTIZED!
We can start with the very ones Paul is writing to here - the Corinthians. What happened when Paul went there and preached the gospel? They were baptized! (Acts 18:8). In the very context of 1 Cor. 1:17 Paul mentions some of those whom he had baptized (1 Cor. 1:14-16). How is it then that Paul could be saying that his preaching did not include baptism? Ridiculous! He even says in this same letter (1 Corinthians) that it is by baptism that we enter into the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:13).
How many people had been saved by hearing Paul preach and being baptized? We are not told exactly but we are told of a great many. Notice, Lydia was baptized as a result of hearing Paul preach (Acts 16:14-15). The Philippian jailer is another example (Acts 16:27-34). Paul had corrected the problem with those Ephesians' baptism (Acts 19:1-5) and then later wrote to remind them that there is only one baptism (Eph. 4:5). He wrote to the Romans to remind them of how we are baptized into Christ (Rom. 6:3, 4). He wrote to the Galatians about becoming children of God by being baptized into Christ (Gal. 3:26, 27). Even in recounting his own conversion he places salvation (the washing away of his sins) at the time of his baptism (Acts 22:16).
How can someone look at all of this evidence and then claim that Paul didn't believe in the necessity of baptism? It simply cannot be so!
There can be no question that to preach the gospel of Christ includes - to a very large degree - the preaching of baptism for the remission of sins. Notice Acts 8:35, where it says that Philip preached Jesus to the Ethiopian eunuch. IN THE VERY NEXT VERSE THE EUNUCH ASKS TO BE BAPTIZED! (Acts 8:36). Now, if all Philip did was preach Jesus to him, how did the eunuch know he needed to be baptized? It is so clear - a person would need help to miss it! To preach Jesus means to preach the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus (1 Cor. 15:1-4). To preach the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus as the sacrifice for our sins is to preach the necessity of baptism (Rom. 6:3, 4). You CANNOT preach Jesus without preaching the necessity of baptism - not scripturally. So how could Paul be excluding it in 1 Cor. 1:17? Clearly, he was not.
Norm,
Show me in the bible where anyone
other than an apostle was given the POWER or AUTHORITY to baptise anyone for the remission of sins.
Don
Reply to this
Don,
In Matthew 28:19, 20 Jesus said, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.”
In this passage he told the apostles to:
1. Go and teach all nations.
If we want to see what they were supposed to teach to all nations we can look at Acts 2, the apostles began to carry out what they were commanded here. In Acts 2 Peter preached to them about Christ and their guilt of crucifying the Son of God. When they were convicted of their sins (John 16:7-9), they wanted to know what to do to be forgiven of their guilt (Acts 2:37). Peter taught them what they had to do in verse 38, “repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.”
2. Baptize all nations.
Acts 2 is an example of what the apostles were to teach and it is also an example of what that teaching was to accomplish – baptism for the remission of sins .
3. Teach all nations to observe what Jesus commanded of them.
In the context of this statement the specific thing that Jesus had just commanded them was to go and teach all nations so that they would be baptized for the remissions of sins. That makes this command, given to the apostles, a self-perpetuating command. That is, the command was given to them and they were to give it to everyone they taught and baptized. Those who were baptized, then, were to go and teach others so that they would be baptized for the remission of sins.
With a self-perpetuating command like this, we should be able to find references to the apostles teaching those they had baptized for the remission of sins to do the same. Take note of these several passages that establish the FACT that those taught by the apostles were expected to carry on the work of teaching all nations to be baptized for the remission of sins and then to teach those they taught to do the same thing, and so on, and so on, to our present day, and even to the end of the world.
2 Timothy 2:2, And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
Paul commanded Timothy (not an apostle) to take the things that he had learned from him (an apostle) and commit (teach) the same to faithful men (not apostles), who would then be responsible for teaching others also (not apostles). Well, what was it that Timothy was to teach to others so that they could teach others also, and so on? “The things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses”! So, if Paul taught people to be baptized for the remission of sins then Timothy was supposed to teach people to be baptized for the remission of sins and then they were to teach people to be baptized for the remission of sins, and so on.
In Acts 22:16, speaking of his own conversion, Paul said that he was told by Anninias (not an apostle), “And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” Is the washing away of sins the same thing as remission (forgiveness) of sins? Anyone without ulterior motives can clearly see that it is the same thing! So one of the first things observed about Paul is that he was not baptized by an apostle and his baptism was for the remission of sins!
1 Corinthians 1:11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. 12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. 13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
Paul is dealing with the divisions that were taking place in the congregation at Corinth. He replaces the names of others with the names of himself (an apostle), Apollos (not an apostle), and Cephas (an apostle) (cf. 4:6).
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.
After pointing out the problem of their division Paul says that he is thankful that he did not baptize any of them, with a few exceptions. Why? What is the connection to who baptized them to the problem of their division? The obvious answer is that they were becoming followers of the ones baptizing them instead of followers of Christ, as they should have been.
1 Corinthians 3:5, Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? 6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
The problem wasn’t with their baptism, the problem was with their elevating the person doing the baptism. So Paul says that, as far as those doing the teaching and baptizing, they are mere servants by whom they (the Corinthians) had heard the gospel and obeyed it by being baptized.
Here’s the answer to your question, Don. Paul is talking about the problem the Corinthians had with dividing themselves according to the men who had taught and baptized them. And in his addressing this problem he mentions three men by name as those who taught and baptized people – Paul (an apostle), Apollos (not an apostle), and Cephas (an apostle). So, obviously, for Paul to use Apollos in this passage means that Apollos was one who taught and baptized people. Further, in 1 Corinthians 4:6 – the same context of 1:10-14 and 3:5 – Paul says that the names he used were figurative for others. The others for which Paul substituted his, Apollos’ and Cephas’ names were obviously not apostles – yet they were, likewise, obviously teaching and baptizing people.
Paul refers to the “washing of regeneration” – which is baptism (Acts 22:16) – in Titus 3:5 and then three verses later, in the same paragraph, says to Titus (not an apostle), “these things I will that thou affirm constantly.”
In 1 Corinthians 16:10, Paul says of Timothy (not an apostle), “he worketh the work of the Lord, as I also do.”
Well, how did Paul do the work? Every where Paul preached people were baptized! Notice:
Acts 16:14 And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul. 15 And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.
Acts 16:32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.
Acts 18:7 ¶And he departed thence, and entered into a certain man's house, named Justus, one that worshipped God, whose house joined hard to the synagogue. 8 And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.
So when Paul said that Timothy worked the work of the Lord just like Paul did it is clear that, just like when Paul went somewhere people heard, believed and were baptized, when Timothy went somewhere, people heard, believed and were baptized. Otherwise, Paul could not say that Timothy did the work just like he did.
Don, thank you for your question and please let me know if you need me to give any more of the several examples where the apostles taught their converts to do the work of teaching and baptizing for the remission of sins.
Thank You,
Norm Fields
Reply to this
Norm,
You have bought into the GREAT COMMISSION theory. Show me the Great Commission in the bible.
If this power was passed down you
could do the other things in the
so called Great Commission.
Jesus was talking to his Desciples
not you. The examples given in the
bible you use most often ie. Phillip, Peter, Paul were called by God and SENT. Were you sent by God or was you sent by man.Romans 10-15 And how shall they preach except they be SENT. I notice you quote St. John 10 13, and 14 often but leave off 10-15, Why is that? You did not show me where it says any except the first century men who were called of God could baptise for the remission of sins. Speculation
does not count. The ones you mentioned none of them stated they were baptising for the remission of sins. Jesus only gave this power to his Disciples.
Peter could have remitted
Cornelius sin without baptism.
You do not have this POWER.
St. John 20- 22,23 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: 23
Whose soever sins YE remit, they are remitted unto them; nothing
about baptism is stated here.
The people even questioned Jesus
when he forgave sins. Mark 2-7
who can forgive sins but God only.
This power was not passed on and on by man teaching man. After Judas hanged himself the disciples had to cast lots to see who would take his place, and then they had to lay hands on to confirm him. You have a make believe ministry if you think you can remit sins by your baptism.
You also say you contact the blood of Christ in the water. Show me this passage in the bible.
Don
Reply to this
Don,
You asked me a question and I gave you numerous passages in answer to your question. If I were you I would be very concerned about holding to a doctrine that would cause me to respond to an answer from God's word as "buying into something." Don, does it ever occur to you that you are more concerned with denying baptism than you are with obeying God? Why would you go to such great lengths to try and disprove a very clear command of God? Is defending your man-made doctrines worth missing eternal redemption? I pray that you will obey the simple truth of God's word before it is too late!
Reply to this