Posted on 03/05/2015 2:28:53 AM PST by RaceBannon
“I Corinthians 1:17 cannot be understood without reading I Corinthians 1:14-16 where you will quickly see that Paul did baptize people. Because of these schisms Paul finds it a blessing that he had not personally baptized very many in Corinth. He could think of only Crispus, Gaius, and Stephanas’ household. Paul feared that if there were more it might have lend credence to the idea that he had personal disciples among the Corinthians.
There are groups who attempt to use these verses to claim that baptism is unessential because Paul was thankful that he had not baptized people in Corinth. Clearly such a contention is contrary to the context of the passage. Paul had baptized several and his other writings, such as Romans 6:3-7 and Galatians 3:26-27 make it clear that Paul saw baptism as essential for salvation. What Paul was concerned about was the possibility of some twisting the events into baptisms into Paul instead of baptisms into Christ.
I Corinthians 1:17 is frequently misread as people ignore the ellipses present in this statement. “For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect” (I Corinthians 1:17).
An ellipse takes place when an essential word or phrase is left out of a statement. You can determine from the statement that the word was meant to be there, but the very fact that it was left out causes the listener to focus on the missing part. It engages the mind of the listener to participate in the discussion by supplying the missing word.
A common style of ellipses in Greek is of a “not ... but” construction, where both the “not” and the “but” modify a shared verb. Often the shared verb does not appear after the “but,” but is implied as an ellipse. This type of sentence construction is idiomatic in Greek. When you see it, you should read it as “not only ... but also.” The idiom stresses that what comes after the “but” is considered to be far more important than what comes after the “not.”
An example of this construction is found in I Peter 3:3-4. The common verb is “let be.” Some translations supply the missing words. Peter is not saying that styling your hair, wearing jewelry, or dressing up is forbidden. He is saying that they aren’t very important when compared to dressing up the spirit with gentleness and quietness. The latter make a far greater impact on beauty, especially in God’s eyes, than outward adornments.
In the case of I Corinthians 1:17 the common verb is “did send.” Paul did not claim that he wasn’t supposed to baptize. To claim that is to contradict what he just stated in the verses prior. What Paul is saying is that his duty to Christ was far broader than just baptizing people. He had the more important job of preaching the gospel, so he focused on this and let others do most of the baptizing.
Paul is not disparaging baptism but talking about the focus of his mission for Christ. Paul is stating that his primary purpose was not to just baptize people. His chief mission was to teach the gospel. Such teaching obviously leads baptism (Acts 2:40-41; 18:4, 8). But Paul’s mission was to preach the gospel in a simple, straightforward manner so that the focus of the message remained on Christ’s death.
It appears that Paul, like Peter in Acts 10:48, had others do the actual baptisms while he continued to preach.”
So precisely whom do YOU consider to be your brothers in the LORD? Other Trinitarian Christians or ONLY those baptized by a Campbellite immersionist?
I was baptized by immersion in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a cold stream as a teen, but the Campbellite church, that later tried to convert me, considered my baptism to be null and void, insisting I be baptize THEIR WAY for their reasons!
Even the Catholics accept a baptism in the name of the Trinity from other denominations except mormons and JWs!
But No-O-O-o! The Campbellites would not accept mine! What is really galling is I came out of an old Northern Irish RESTORATIONIST movement completely separate from the Stone-Campbell revivalist movement.
***Paul did not claim that he wasn’t supposed to baptize.***
Can you find anywhere in his statements of his conversion and commission to preach to the gentiles a demand that he must baptize? No.
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.
So, he was NOT sent to baptize even though he did. He also circumcised Timothy, even though he said circumcision avails nothing.
I’ve heard the Naaman story every time the Cambellites began their spill, and every other attempt to show water cuts off the past such as the crossing of the red sea and the crossing of the Jordan river.
They don’t go into the fact that all those who crossed the Red sea died in the desert except the very young and Joshua and Caleb. Even MOSES was not allowed into the promised land. Also, when the Jordan river closed behind them they still had several tribes take possession of land on the East side of the river.
Everything in Campbellite doctrine revolves around water baptism. Everything!
For others, everything revolves around what CHRIST has done for the believer.
Is that what you would’ve said to John the Baptist? :-)
Though God often uses water to accomplish His purposes, it is not the only means. But let’s stay dry by looking at a different example.
When did the walls of Jericho fall? Was it BEFORE the marching or AFTER?
Was it the marching that CAUSED the walls to fall? Or was it the Israelites’ faith?
If (before God commanded them to march) Joshua had devised a plan of his own for taking the city, and announced a 7-day marching plan, would the walls have fallen?
***There aren’t two baptisms, only one.***
Really!
I know Paul said ONE FAITH, One LORD, ONE BAPTISM. So which is it?
This one? Mark 1: 4
John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
John: 33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
THIS ONE? Matthew 3:
13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. 14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? 15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.
16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
This one? Matthew 20:
22 But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able.
Maybe this one,
Luke: 50 But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!
This one? 3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
So we see a Water for remission of sin by JOHN,
The Holy Spirit baptism as a dove,
A future baptism of death on the cross.
The baptism of the believer into Christ.
From VINE’s http://www.menfak.no/bibelprog/vines?word=%AFt0000215
“to baptize,” primarily a frequentative form of bapto, “to dip,” was used among the Greeks to signify the dyeing of a garment, or the drawing of water by dipping a vessel into another, etc. Plutarchus uses it of the drawing of wine by dipping the cup into the bowl (Alexis, 67) and Plato, metaphorically, of being overwhelmed with questions (Euthydemus, 277 D).
We also use other terms such as to be overwhelmed, such as the baptism of war, or blood (of the Lamb).
NOAH! NOAH! NOAH!
Criminy! I need to proofread more before hitting the post button!
I need to proofread more before hitting the post button!
Now I’m all worked up!
It reminded me of the fellow who got confused when telling the story of Jehu...
So when Jehu rides into town, some guys hollar down to him, “Whadda we do with Jezebel?”
And he says, “Chuck’er down, boys!”
And they says, “How many times? Seven times?”
And he says, “Nay, but seventy times seven!”
30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
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.
What is missing here?
Romans 10:
8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
BELIEVE ON THE LORD JESUS CHRIST AND THOU SHALT BE SAVED! Baptism came later but SALVATION was already there.
John was preparing the way for the LORD.
His baptism fort remission of sins must not have been good because we see disciples of John, who did not know if there even was a Holy Spirit, being rebaptized in Acts.
ACTS 19:
4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Some believe verse 5 should be changed thus;
5 When they heard this they (those who heard John speak) were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
I’m a little cautious of this but it would make John’s REMISSION OF SIN baptism easier to understand.
LOL
***Before your sins are washed away or after? ***
What can wash away my sin?
Nothing but the blood of Jesus...
Now go to the next step and conflate water and blood for cleansing of sin. You don’t get the blood till it is applied in the water...Wait, that doesn’t make sense!
In the OT the blood of a sacrifice was mixed with water and SPRINKLED on the people.
Psalm51:
51 Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions.
2 Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin.
3 For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me.
4 Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest.
5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
6 Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts: and in the hidden part thou shalt make me to know wisdom.
7 Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.
NO immersion baptism here.
John lived under the old covenant. The new covenant, prophesied beforehand, was not yet in effect.
Once the new covenant was in effect (at Jesus’ death, Heb. 8-9, etc.), His apostles preached baptism in His name. Some didn’t believe this gospel. Those who did were baptized.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.