Baptism is commanded by God, so it can't be man-made.St. Paul didn't seem all that thrilled about it:
1 Corinthians 1:10-17
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.
11. My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you.
12. What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas "; still another, "I follow Christ."
13. Is 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.
FK: "Baptism is commanded by God, so it can't be man-made."St. Paul didn't seem all that thrilled about it: [1 Corinthians 1:10-17]
Well, I would say that Paul didn't think it HIS role to baptize much, but he didn't have any objection to the practice. I think the explanation is in the very verses you quote. Paul was worried about anyone thinking that he was baptized in the name of Paul and following Paul vs. being baptized in the name of the trilogy and following God. At the time, this seems to me to be a caution worthy of consideration. So, Paul simply had others do it.
All of this is more evidence that water baptism is not salvational. Jesus was baptized by water, and so if it is reasonable that He was setting an example for us, then I think it safe to say that He wants us to be water baptized also. It is a public display of obedience to God, which takes a commitment by the believer to undertake, as we Baptists see it. Paul DID perform a few water baptisms, so that proves that he had no theological issues against it, and that the practice itself WAS proper.