What's the faith in "faith only"?

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.

Would you say that Paul was disobedient to the Great Commission?? </font>[/QUOTE]Did Paul baptize? Yes, but not many. Were the Corinthians baptized? Yes (Acts 18:8)

Some people were claiming to be followers of Paul. Paul list two conditions that would make them followers or belonging to Paul. 1) Paul would have to be crucified for them. 2) They would have to be baptized in his name or by his authority.

Paul was not crucified for them but Jesus was. They were not baptized in Paul's name, but in the name of Jesus. Therefore, they belonged to Jesus not Paul.

That is why Paul was glad that he had not baptized more of them, because the understood the importance of baptism.

Can you not see the emphasis Paul is placing on baptism?

The Corithians had been baptized. The gospel had been preached to them and they had been baptized. Not a very good argument for baptism not being part of the gospel.

Others could do the baptizing as well as Paul, but not necessarily the preaching. Paul's commission was to preach.

But notice something very important about Paul’s words that actually demonstrate the necessity of baptism:

To re-state, according to verse 13, in order to be called after Christ, at least two things must happen:



1.) Christ must die for that person (which He did)

2.) That person must be baptized into the name of Christ!

If one has not been baptized into Christ, how can they rightfully call themselves a Christian or one who belongs or is a follower of Christ, according to this Chapter?

Even though Paul may have only baptized a few of the Corinthians himself, personally, they ALL were baptized!

You see, I Cor 1 is a strong argument for the necessity of baptism, not an argument against it.

 

Bmerr,

Good post.

DT

 

But not by the hand of Paul. Paul's commission was clearly not to baptize. It was to preach the gospel, of which baptism is not part of, and clearly has nothing to do with salvation. Paul makes that clear. Christ sent him to preach the gospel that saves, not to baptize. Baptism doesn't save, has no part in salvation.

Only in your imagination. Christ sent Paul not to baptize. Why? He sent him to preach the gospel. This did not just apply to the Corinthians, but everywhere he went. This was the commission that Christ gave him throughout his entire life. Why? Because baptism is not and never was part of salvation. Christ sent him to preach the gospel of which baptism is not a part of. If you deny this you deny the Word of God. The Scriptures remain clear and plain; how can you deny them?

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.
DHK

 

Paul's mission was indeed to preach the gospel not to necessarily baptize folks himself. However, it doesn't logically follow from his statement that baptism is therefore not part of the salvation process or part of the gospel message itself. (In fact, it was clear in the NT that the gospel message included the command to be baptized for the remission of sins.) All his statement meant was that he was busy preaching--others could do the actual baptizing.

 

But not by the hand of Paul. Paul's commission was clearly not to baptize. It was to preach the gospel, of which baptism is not part of, and clearly has nothing to do with salvation. Paul makes that clear. Christ sent him to preach the gospel that saves, not to baptize. Baptism doesn't save, has no part in salvation.

Only in your imagination. Christ sent Paul not to baptize. Why? He sent him to preach the gospel. This did not just apply to the Corinthians, but everywhere he went. This was the commission that Christ gave him throughout his entire life. Why? Because baptism is not and never was part of salvation. Christ sent him to preach the gospel of which baptism is not a part of. If you deny this you deny the Word of God. The Scriptures remain clear and plain; how can you deny them?

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.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]But Paul did baptize! Was that contrary to the message of the gospel? Why were the Corinthians baptized? They had heard the gospel that Paul preached and were baptized. Certainly you understand that Paul was an inspired apostle and only he could preach like he did, yet others could baptize those that responded to the gospel.

Re-read it for what it says.

To re-state, according to verse 13, in order to belong to Christ, at least two things must happen:

1.) Christ must die for that person (which He did)

2.) That person must be baptized into the name of Christ!

If one has not been baptized into Christ, how can they rightfully call themselves a Christian or one who belongs to or is a follower of Christ, according to this Chapter?

Even though Paul may have only baptized a few of the Corinthians himself, personally, they ALL were baptized!

I Cor 1:13 ...Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name. 16(I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.) 17For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

Why was Paul glad that he had not baptized more? Because he didn't want any of them to say that they were baptized in the name of Paul or that they belonged to Paul. This clearly shows the importance of baptism. If baptism were unimportant, what would it have mattered who baptized them? They would have placed no significance on their baptism. Yet, they did understand the importance of baptism. Again, what would it take to belong to Christ? Christ would have to be crucified for you and you would have to be baptized in His name. Simple.

 

Mman,
You are really stretching the truth, and grasping for straws.
Read the Scripture: And tell me if you believe it or not:

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.

What was Paul's commisstion.

What was not Paul's commission.

 

Your argument is with God, not with me.

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.

I didn't write the Bible, the Holy Spirit of God did.

Do you believe this verse or not?
DHK

 

Hi DHK:

I been following this thread and studying and taking in everyone’s opinion and I was reading over 1 Corinthians 1:17 and I decided to read the whole chapter to try and get a good grasp on 1:17.

Starting at verse 12-16 we read: 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. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.

When I read this it seemed to me that there may have been people baptizing other’s in there own name, because Paul made this comment Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?….Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.

First the gospel has to be preached, because faith comes by hearing and it just seemed to me that Paul made that statement in verse 17 to show the gospel has to be preached first and that his job wasn’t to just baptize only and take all the glory, which seemed like some were doing before Paul could write them and set them straight.

Seems like there’s a lot more going on in the opening chapter than we realize, but that’s just my opinion.

What are your thoughts on the other verses?

Blessings

 

Hi bmerr:

Thanks for the comment, it’s the best I can do with no formal education, but boy do I wish I was back in my 20’s I would’ve went to bible college and studied to be a theologian, but married in my 30’s with 3 kids under 4 and debt to my neck…lol…it’s hard to just go into more debt and pay for more college, just to study the bible as a hobby.

I just thank you guys for challenging me on both sides of the issue.

I just try not to isolate a verse and try to develop a doctrine or ridicule another doctrine (not that anybody here is doing that and I’m not pointing fingers). I just try and use the whole context of the bible and not one verse or one particular letter, like Romans, just my .02 worth.

Blessings to all!

 

I fully realize the context in which Paul was speaking. There was much division in the church. There were some that were following after Paul, after Peter, and some being more "spiritual" than others simply saying they were following "Christ." It was a divided church. Paul's answer was in the form of a rebuke. But that does not the negate the principle that he was setting forth.

That is akin to saying that the principles set forth in the "Lord's Prayer" are only for the disciples and/or the people present sitting at the feet of Jesus on the mount where the "sermon on the mount" was given. It is not applicable to us today because we weren't there. Are you willing to concede the same about the principle that Paul set forth in 1Cor.1:17?

I don't think so. This was a principle that he set forth applicable to where ever he went, not just the Corinthian church. Let's see what it is.

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.

1. Christ sent me (Paul) not to baptize. First we see that Paul was not sent to baptize. Call Christ a liar if you wish, but that was not the commission that Christ had called him to. Paul testifies to that. Even if he had baptized Stephanus, and a couple of others, it is of no consequence, that was not what Paul was sent to do. It was not his commission. He was not sent to baptized. That is made clear right here in Scripture. Don't argue with me on this point. Your argument should be taken up with the author of the book.

2. Look at the differentiation Paul makes. Christ sent me not to baptize but to preach the gospel. Any objective reader can see that baptism is not part of the gospel. Paul just said it isn't. Paul was sent to preach the gospel which did not include baptism. He was sent to preach the gospel which he defines in 1Cor.15:1-5--the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It does not include baptism. The COC deny both of these passages and say that the gospel includes baptism. Their doctrine is therefore heresy, contradicts the plain teaching of the Word of God, contradicts what Paul has plainly said twice in this chapter. Christ sent him not to baptize.
Christ sent him to preach the gospel.
The two are very different from each other and have nothing to do with each other. He had one commission not two. The gospel does not include baptism. How clear can this passage be!
Just as the Lord's Prayer applies to us today, so Paul's teaching here concerning the gospel applies to us today.
DHK

 

We have been over those passages Bmerr. We have seen how you have taken them out of their contexts. We have explained them to you dozens of times the correct exegetical meaning of the verses in questions. But the simple fact is that you refuse to believe what the Bible says.
1Cor.1:17 and 1Cor.15:1-4 are very clear on the matter of what the gospel is. Either you believe it or you don't. I prefer to believe what the Word of God teaches.
DHK

 

Indeed faith and repentance preceded baptism.
Your statement clarified: Faith and repentance are commanded as the required response to the gospel, not baptism. Baptism is no where mentioned as part of the gospel in 1Cor.1:17 and in 1Cor.15:1-4. It is clearly differentiated from it. Paul takes great pains to differentiate baptism even as "a proper response to the gospel." It has nothing to do with the gospel!
It does not matter how long a person is baptized after a person believes or is saved, for it is not a part of salvation. For me it was two years. I was still saved during those two years. Baptism is not a part of salvation. It is step of obedience for the believer after salvation, after faith and repentance, or more accurately put, faith which includes repentance. Baptism definitely is not part of salvation.
DHK

 

Greetings

Dear friend. We are not against baptism. Baptism is commanded by Jesus. Let's do it for the right reasons.

Baptism isn't part of the gospel and not associated with justification. It isn't salvific. Baptism is the first step of sanctification.

When Paul baptized people, it was the right thing to do - AFTER they were justified by faith in Jesus.

Justification and sanctification harmonize well with REformed theology. In Trentine theology, justification is set against sanctification with sanctification winning!

Simple child-like PASSIVE faith. If faith becomes any part human activity, then it is not faith but works. We can passively accept God's lavish free gift of salvation. We cannot actively do anything to earn it.

Lloyd