""I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name. (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.) For 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. - 1st Cor 1"
What he seems to be saying is that if more people were baptized by him they would be bragging of that fact, since he was so popular, rather than being content to just be baptized.
I liken the statement as the same as if a person were baptized by the Pope. They would go around telling everybody of that fact. Probaby why the Pope doesn't baptize people. Just lke Paul, he has too many other things to do.
Anybody can argue all they want to about the necessity of Baptism. It is clear in the Bible of it's necessity, and you twist the words, or accept the advice of those that do, at your own peril.
I don't believe anyone is suggesting that baptism is not necessary, just not necessary for salvation. Baptism is a commad that should be obeyed. The REASON for baptism is what is at debate.
Becky
***What he seems to be saying is that if more people were baptized by him they would be bragging of that fact, since he was so popular, rather than being content to just be baptized. ***
According to your theology, what he seems to be saying is something like, "I'm glad I didn't take part in anyone's salvation through baptism in case they might boast about it." (I guess he would rather see them perish then run the risk that some might boast).
...which is clearly preposterous. We know Paul would have never thought such a thing.
Let this statement sink in...
"I thank God that I baptized none of you..."
If baptism is a requirement for salvation then Paul is THANKING GOD that he didn't help people get saved!
But did he help these exact people experience the new birth? Yes. He clearly stated he did here:
For though ye have ten thousand instructers in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel."
"...through the Gospel", not through baptism.
***It is clear in the Bible of it's necessity, and you twist the words, or accept the advice of those that do, at your own peril.****
I am not denigrating the importance of baptism. I am saying that baptism is an outward act that symbolizes an inward change. The outward act with out the inward change means nothing. The inward change is not dependent on the outward act, but rather, it is a public expression of it.
Just like circumcision in the OT. One could be outwardly, physically circumcised but not inwardly circumcised. That is why God said...
"Circumcise yourselves to the LORD;
remove the foreskin of your hearts,
O men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem;
lest my wrath go forth like fire,
and burn with none to quench it,
because of the evil of your deeds."
You can have outward circumcision but not inward circumcision.
You can have outward baptism, be physically washed in water, but not have the inner baptism - the baptism of the Spirit. That is the baptism which washes the heart clean.
The ones who are truly at peril are the one who think a physical ritual will save them when they have never experienced the life-changing baptism of the Holy Spirit in their hearts.