Christ sent me not to baptize

[rlvaughn]

In 1 Corinthians 1:17 an apostle, Paul, wrote, "For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel..." I am interested in your thoughts on this statement. It seems the other apostles were, in some sense, sent to baptize (Cf. Matthew 28:18-29). Paul did baptize folks, even in Corinth according to the very context in which the statement "Christ sent me not to baptize" was made. Why did Paul say he was not sent to baptize?

1 Corinthians 1:10-17
10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. 11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the houseof 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? 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.

 

[HankD]

In 1 Corinthians 1:17 an apostle, Paul, wrote, "For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel..." I am interested in your thoughts on this statement. It seems the other apostles were, in some sense, sent to baptize (Cf. Matthew 28:18-29). Paul did baptize folks, even in Corinth according to the very context in which the statement "Christ sent me not to baptize" was made. Why did Paul say he was not sent to baptize?
.

Because he was not sent to baptize but to preach the Gospel.

 

[Scarlett O.]

This was my Sunday School lesson yesterday.

I think that because there were divisions in the church pertaining to "who baptized whom" and "who followed whom" that Paul was trying to concentrate on the bigger picture of the gospel for this church who had not gotten the bigger picture about anything. This church was in a hot mess.

Paul did baptize a few people there and probably some elsewhere. I think he is putting a priority on his calling - and not setting baptism to the side. He is showing them that they have their priorities wrong, not that he will not baptize or that Christ doesn't want him to baptize. Paul did baptize some people.

It would be like me in my former teaching days telling my 4th grade math students who are caught up in the novelty of the manipulatives that "I am not here to bring you fake coins and bills to play with. I am here to teach you how to make change and make it quickly and in your head."

They DO manipulate them and in their minds "play" with the fake monies, but the bigger picture is something far beyond play.

 

[rlvaughn]

Because he was not sent to baptize but to preach the Gospel.

So, why did he baptize in addition to preaching the gospel?

 

[rlvaughn]

It would be like me in my former teaching days telling my 4th grade math students who are caught up in the novelty of the manipulatives that "I am not here to bring you fake coins and bills to play with. I am here to teach you how to make change and make it quickly and in your head."

They DO manipulate them and in their minds "play" with the fake monies, but the bigger picture is something far beyond play.

In my mind that is a good illustration of what was happening in Corinth.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

I believe Paul was establishing his priorities. His main objective was to point others to the Lord Jesus Christ. Although he would naturally gather followers (I Corinthians 4:15-16), he wanted to make it clear that amassing followers was not his goal. He wanted others to follow him as he followed Christ (I Corinthians 11:1).

All godly authority should be concerned with those over whom we have influence looking past us and seeing the Lord Jesus Christ. It is our "faith" we want them to follow (Hebrews 13:7) and not us specifically.

 

[Jerome]

Paul was dismayed with camps arising in the church:

10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
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.


Paul was dismayed that they would be focusing on the messenger, or who baptized them:

13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?


Paul suggested he was glad he'd not been the one to baptize most of them, as they'd begun exulting in pedigrees, camps, etc.:

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.


Paul was pleading, take the me (Paul, or whoever the messenger or officiant) out of your baptism, wasn't your conversion all about about the gospel, the cross, Christ?

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.
.....
31 ...He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

 

[HankD]

So, why did he baptize in addition to preaching the gospel?

No one is perfect.

 

[rlvaughn]

No one is perfect.

Is that a way of saying you think he baptized even though he was not supposed to???

 

[HankD]

Is that a way of saying you think he baptized even though he was supposed to???

Possibly - he was just being honest.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Is that a way of saying you think he baptized even though he was not supposed to???

Paul, as an ordained leader of the church at Antioch, was certainly supposed to baptize as a part of the great commission that Christ gave His church. He just didn't make it a numbers game.

 

[poor-in-spirit]

I wonder if the Lord's main intent with this passage is in it's fuller context. The key verse being 29: That no flesh should glory in his presence.

All who are born again have answered the only supernatural call you will get from God. That is the conviction of the Spirit through the Word. There are no other extra Biblical "callings" anymore nor since the first century.

It is the nicolaitan doctrine Paul is warning of IMO. The elevation of men among “Christians” to imaginary roles of oversight or as regional, national or worldwide "Christian leaders". The need for men's flesh to be greatest and master over others.

In the NT and after the deaths of the Apostles and their direct disciples whom they laid hands on, all that is remaining until the return of our Lord are two offices within the local assembly: Elder (bishop) and deacon. Elder, bishop, pastor all being synonymous as one office.

The sinful flesh requires that others "look at me" as a leader or as better than or as smarter than or especially as more spiritual than others. Hence the downplay of anyone's names who were baptizing in I Cor 1 which context concluded with who God really does use and it is never a big shot, a big shot in training or a wannabe big shot.

A careful study of the two remaining church offices will reveal quite a bit that is rarely if ever spoken of by those who perpetuate nicolaitan doctrine: Seems no groups I know of misuse the office of deacon nearly as much as they misinterpret and misuse the office of pastor.

-Apostolic succession with gifts and miraculous powers are gone. Along with any formal or informal oversight of more than one local assembly. So the practice of having big shot names throughout "Christendom" as the pope calls it, who are self appointed as your overseers and the authorities in Bible interpretation is false (nicolaitan). There are no popes, archbishops, Bob Jones, John Calvins, Billy Grahams, John Rices mentioned anywhere in Scripture because their entire role in life is or was nicolaitan falsehood and counter to Scripture.

-Local NT assembly Pastor is as high an office as it gets for us and these pastors were to be under-shepherds in their own assemblies only. Therefore only local assembly pastors and deacons have any authority at all and their authority is limited to the local assembly only.

-All false doctrine originates with the big shots who have no place in Scripture. This started during our Lord's ministry, then by the early church (fathers) so-called and has snowballed with the RCC and later protestants. It is widely perpetuated by the love of mammon in all its forms (reverence from men, love of the crowd, big shot titles, book deals) and desperately guarded as untouchable (touch not God's anointed-hic).

-The prophets of old were never adjudicated by men, nor were the apostles except Matthias of course whom God rejected since He did not call that man to replace Judas, He called Paul for that purpose.

-Those directly called by God were never in error. (Good luck finding a pastor who is not in error). Think of it this way also for clarity: God directly inspired His Word through these men He directly called, therefore error was impossible.

Pastor/Elder: Preaches God’s complete inerrant Word without direct or further revelation from God. No Revelation directly than interpretation is based solely on the person’s walk with the Spirit, if walk is weak, so will doctrine be. They are directly linked.

Biblical examples of direct callings meant no errors
Called of men (errors are inevitable)

-Church offices pertain only to that local assembly and the officers were chosen out of that local assembly only.

-Pastors and deacons were never recruited from other places unless temporary until an assembly elder stepped up and certainly not novices as such as seen these days fresh out of institutes of higher "religious" learning (also completely made up and without Biblical precedent - but the world loves their degrees and titles). One thing is clear however is that God doesn't, see below out of the same context the OP laid out:
25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.

-Neither office of pastor nor deacon were called directly by God. Hence the adjudication of men is required via the qualifications carefully outlined more than once in the NT. Nowhere in the NT does God say or give even one example of a NT pastor being directly called by God just as there is no example of a deacon being called of God. They were all volunteers with the desire, then chosen by either the evangelist who planted the local assembly or the church members according to the qualifications.


-In other words, there is absolutely no difference in the identification and selection of both pastors and deacons in the NT. Neither were directly/supernaturally called of God.

-Pastors in the NT were chosen in one of two ways but both ways required first their “desire” for the office (which logically eliminates any supernatural “calling” in itself), secondly they had to meet all qualifications currently (not life long as many led by men think). First the church planter (Biblical evangelist) appointed an elder to pastor (if desire and quals matched) or the assembly close the elder themselves. And in both methods the logical conclusion is when the chosen elder no longer desired the office or no longer currently meets the qualifications they were replaced by another volunteer elder in that church who currently does meet both desire and qualifications. This is the logical conclusion when considering the clear fact that these people are not directly called by God in some supernatural way. It was not the Lord’s intent to make any ado about them and certainly not to perpetuate some life long title, ambition and honors bestowed when they no longer desire the office or retire.
Pastor is an office that must be currently active in. It was never a Title.

-Although mistakenly quoted for pastors constantly, Paul's calling from God actually was a true and direct calling and he never once equated his supernatural experience with that of local elders. Men since then confuse their (usually sinful) desires to be pastors as some supernatural calling. Most have no desire to be nameless, thankless, servants. OH NO sir, most must be the greatest among us or bust. The saddest part is that what the flesh thinks as great, God does not.

-So if what I say here is fully described in the NT as true (if honest, all will admit it is) then why follow these men? Men who had no business outside of their local assembly? Men who had no business making merchandise of God by publishing books thus making more out of themselves than Scripture warrants?

-Even now after 4000 years, God's people will not be ruled by God, they must have human kings. This is the doctrine God's hates. The interpretation of I Cor 1 is directly tied to this doctrine and is far more encompassing than simply the RCC and denominational christianity.

Quite the expansion of thought from what I was originally going to post but couldn’t stop.
I am not in any way attacking anyone with these thoughts but rather praying some will stop and think while there is still time.

The multitude of Scripture I was going to use for these points is so large that I could not reasonably include without making this an essay so if you would like me to post it all just let me know. I will post the locations but not the passages themselves for your reference.

 

[Darrell C]

In 1 Corinthians 1:17 an apostle, Paul, wrote, "For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel..." I am interested in your thoughts on this statement. It seems the other apostles were, in some sense, sent to baptize (Cf. Matthew 28:18-29). Paul did baptize folks, even in Corinth according to the very context in which the statement "Christ sent me not to baptize" was made. Why did Paul say he was not sent to baptize?

1 Corinthians 1:10-17
10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. 11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the houseof 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? 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.

The context deals with sectarianism, and his primary point is "Being baptized in the name of someone is not what saves. What saves is what I preached to you, the Gospel of Christ.

Not even being baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ, or, in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost saves. The only baptism which saves is the Baptism with the Holy Ghost, Christ being the Baptizer, Who immerses and identifies men and women in Himself as was promised in the Old Testament and taught of by Christ:


Acts 1:4-5
King James Version (KJV)

4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.

5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.


That being baptized with the Holy Ghost is the moment of salvation, as opposed to being a "subsequent event of empowerment" as taught by most, is seen here:


Acts 11:12-18
King James Version (KJV)

12 And the Spirit bade me go with them, nothing doubting. Moreover these six brethren accompanied me, and we entered into the man's house:

13 And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter;

14 Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.

15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.

16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.

17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?

18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.


WE see in Acts 10 the "words" spoken by Peter was the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and just as the disciple[les were baptized with the Holy Ghost at Pentecost, even so Cornelius and those among his household were as well.

John the Baptist, Christ, Peter, and Paul all contrast water baptism with the Baptism with the Holy Ghost.

So when Paul states "I was not sent to baptize," we can say with certainty that water baptism has nothing to do with salvation, because we know that Paul's entire ministry, what he was sent for, was to see men saved through the same Word Cornelius and his household were saved by.


God bless.

 

[rlvaughn]

Thanks to those who commented on this. I was working on a short article about it, and your thoughts helped me clarify some of mine. I even used (with permission) Scarlet's illustration about manipulatives.
Ministry and Music - Seeking the Old Paths: Christ Sent Me Not to Baptize

 

[Jeep Dragon]

This question reminds me of a hyper-dispensational view called "mid-Acts dispensationalism" (also known by other names like "the grace movement," "grace ambassadors," "Pauline right division," and other names.) For those who may be unfamiliar with the view it basically claims that the Christian church we know today did not begin at Pentecost but rather by the Apostle Paul at some point. Some forms of mid-Acts dispensationalism teaches that through most of the past dispensations people were saved by some kind of faith + works, but which works were required had changed in each dispensation. God called Paul to start a new dispensation of salvation by grace through faith alone. Paul's gospel of grace co-existed with the other apostles' "gospel of the kingdom" that was kind of like a form of Judaism that required belief in Jesus as the Messiah, which was primarily for the Jews. Both gospels were supposedly valid at the same time, but the "gospel of the kingdom" got phased out. Some Mid-Acts dispensationalists would claim that the Ephesians 4:4-6 was basically Paul's authoritative claim that the "gospel of grace" has now completely replaced the "gospel of the kingdom."

Why would I mention all of this? Because I have heard Mid-Acts dispensationalists use I Corinthians 1:17 to claim that under Paul's "gospel of grace" no water baptism should be performed at all, because water baptism was supposedly a requirement for salvation in the "gospel of the kingdom" according to Mark 16:16, I Peter 3:2, and others. They would claim that people who water baptize today are confusing the scripture today from a past Jewish dispensation that no longer applies.

I don't see I Corinthians 1:17 as some kind of dispensational claim that Paul was rejecting water baptism for his "gospel of grace" as evidenced in the context that others here have already pointed out. This may be a stretch, but I could see Paul's claiming that God did not send him to baptism as being paralleled with Acts 6:2-4 where the apostles said that they should not "leave the Word of God and serve tables." They're not claiming that they're under some special dispensation where serving tables is no longer a practice of the church. They're saying that they personally are called to preach rather than waste their time serving tables, but they appoint deacons to serve the tables. That doesn't mean that they would never serve a table for the rest of their lives, but that is just not their calling, just like Paul had baptized a few people, but wasn't called to baptize but to preach the gospel. Of course, as others pointed out, Paul was using that as an argument that he didn't want to be part of the misunderstanding that the one who baptized someone has some kind of spiritual authority on the one baptized, which was causing divisions.

 

[HankD]

I've heard of these folks. If these are who I think they are they feel that much of the NT writings (including some of the epistles) are not specifically written with a modern church focus.

Personally I too believe Paul was simply expressing his strong sense of calling was not primarily to baptize but to preach Christ crucified and left the baptizing up to others.

 

[kyredneck]

Being baptized in the name of someone is not what saves. What saves is what I preached to you, the Gospel of Christ.

we can say with certainty that water baptism has nothing to do with salvation

???

16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned. Mk 16

38 And Peter said unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Acts 2

20 that aforetime were disobedient, when the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water:
21 which also after a true likeness doth now save you, even baptism, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the interrogation of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ; 1 Pet 3

 

[Darrell C]

???

So you believe men are saved...through water Baptism?

Did you read the post? It explains that salvation is not tied to water Baptism, but being Baptized with the Holy Ghost:



The context deals with sectarianism, and his primary point is "Being baptized in the name of someone is not what saves. What saves is what I preached to you, the Gospel of Christ.

Not even being baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ, or, in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost saves. The only baptism which saves is the Baptism with the Holy Ghost, Christ being the Baptizer, Who immerses and identifies men and women in Himself as was promised in the Old Testament and taught of by Christ:


Acts 1:4-5
King James Version (KJV)

4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.

5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.


That being baptized with the Holy Ghost is the moment of salvation, as opposed to being a "subsequent event of empowerment" as taught by most, is seen here:


Acts 11:12-18
King James Version (KJV)

12 And the Spirit bade me go with them, nothing doubting. Moreover these six brethren accompanied me, and we entered into the man's house:

13 And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter;

14 Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.

15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.

16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.

17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?

18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.


We see in Acts 10 the "words" spoken by Peter was the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and just as the disciple[les were baptized with the Holy Ghost at Pentecost, even so Cornelius and those among his household were as well.

John the Baptist, Christ, Peter, and Paul all contrast water baptism with the Baptism with the Holy Ghost.

So when Paul states "I was not sent to baptize," we can say with certainty that water baptism has nothing to do with salvation, because we know that Paul's entire ministry, what he was sent for, was to see men saved through the same Word Cornelius and his household were saved by.


Nowhere do we see Christ baptizing in water, and we do not see anyone told they must not be baptized in the Name of Christ because they were already baptized by Christ's disciples prior to Pentecost.

This shows, without controversy, that baptisms performed by the disciples under the ministry of Christ are not equated with men being baptized in the Name of Christ.

And just as men who came to John's baptism of repentance were simply showing they had already repented, even so those baptized in the Name of Christ are showing they have already been saved. When those whose lives showed they had not repented came to John, he forbade them to be baptized, but to go and show fruit meet for repentance, or in other words...

...prove they had in fact repented.

John's Baptism did not bring about repentance, men were simply baptized to show they had repented. Christian Baptism does not save, it simply shows men have already been saved, and the baptism identifies them with Christ.

Hope that helps your ???.


Continued...

 

[rlvaughn]

This question reminds me of a hyper-dispensational view called "mid-Acts dispensationalism" (also known by other names like "the grace movement," "grace ambassadors," "Pauline right division," and other names.)

I've heard of these folks. If these are who I think they are they feel that much of the NT writings (including some of the epistles) are not specifically written with a modern church focus.

Yes, one reason I was looking back over this was because of a guy that seemed to be using 1 Corinthians 1:17 in that regard. Although he seemed very anti-water baptism, I never got him to admit he was one of these kinds of dispensationalists.

Personally I too believe Paul was simply expressing his strong sense of calling was not primarily to baptize but to preach Christ crucified and left the baptizing up to others.

The simplicity of it seems to be too much for some folks!

 

[Darrell C]

16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned. Mk 16

Its a given, kind of like "Only the Elect will be saved." Of course only the elect will be saved, its a given.

Note believing comes before baptism. No different than repentance coming before John's Baptism. The baptisms do not bring about what they are called, they simply signify what they are called has taken place.

Again, John's Baptism did not bring about repentance, and those who had not already repented were turned away:


Matthew 3
King James Version (KJV)


1 In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea,

2 And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

3 For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.


Repentance was meant to ready the heart for the coming of the Lord, the Messiah of Israel:


John 1:30-31 King James Version (KJV)

30 This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me.

31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.


4 And the same John had his raiment of camel's hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts and wild honey.

5 Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan,

6 And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.


Repentance was already in place for those baptized by John. They didn't receive repentance by being baptized by John.

He rejects the claim of Pharisees and Sadducees (and other Jews according to Luke 3:7):


7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:

9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

10 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.


Again, the point is John's Baptism did not bring about repentance, it signified those being baptized had already repented.



11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.


How many of John's disciples, as well as those baptized by Christ's disciples during His ministry towards Israel...would have to believe on Christ and be baptized, not in identification with John's baptism of Repentance, but in the Name of Christ, signifying they had already been saved and were now identified with Him?

Again I ask you...do you think water Baptism saves?


Continued...