I Corintians and Ultra- Dispensationalism

[B.J.]

14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so that no one would say you were baptized in my name. 16 Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other.

17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel,



Does anyone have an interpretation to this text? In my dialogues with an Ultra Dispensational this text is submitted as evidence that Baptism is not as important as Protestants make it out to be. The question asked to me was why would Paul be thankful that he did not Baptize anyone more than the ones mentioned if it is so important.

 

[aleksanderpolo]

In the Corinth church there are people who are under the "I follow ..." mentality. Apparently, some think that they are under and following a certain leader if they are baptized by that person.

Paul is thankful that he didn't baptize many people there, otherwise there will be many people who claims "I follow Paul, because I was baptized by/into Paul".

You should take out the examples in Acts, and asked that person back: "If baptism is not for this dispensation, why bother baptizing them when they are converted?" there are dozens of examples in Acts alone, reading every single passage of them should do the trick

 

[AV1611]

John Gill:

1Co 1:17 - For Christ sent me not to baptize,.... Some think the apostle refers to his particular mission from Christ, Act_26:16 in which no mention is made of his administering the ordinance of baptism; but no doubt he had the same mission the rest of the apostles had, which was to baptize as well as preach; and indeed, if he had not been sent at all to baptize, it would have been unlawful for him to have administered baptism to any person whatever; but his sense is, that baptism was not the chief and principal business he was sent about; this was to be done mostly by those preachers of the word who travelled with him, or followed after him: he was not sent so much about this work,

but to preach the Gospel; for which he was most eminently qualified, had peculiar gifts for the discharge of it, and was greatly useful in it. This was what he was rather sent to do than the other, and this "not with wisdom of words". Scholastic divinity, or the art of disputation, is by the (f) Karaites, a sect among the Jews, called חכמת הדברים, "wisdom of words": this the apostle seems to refer to, and signifies he was not sent with, or to preach, with words of man's wisdom, with human eloquence and oratory, with great swelling words of vanity, but in a plain, humble, modest manner; on which account the false teachers despised him, and endeavoured to bring his ministry into contempt with others: but this way and manner of preaching he chose for this reason,

lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect; that is, either lest men's ears and fancies should be so tickled and pleased with the eloquence of speech, the elegancy of diction, and accuracy of expression, the cadency of words, and beauty of the oration, with the manner, and not with the matter of preaching, and so the true use, end, and design of the doctrine of a crucified Christ be defeated; or lest the success of the ministry should be attributed to the force of enticing words, and the strength and persuasion of oratory, and not to the energy of divine power attending the doctrine of the cross,

(f) Sepher Cosri Orat. 5. Sign. 15, 16. fol. 277. 2. 278. 1.

 

[AV1611]

Geneva notes:

1Co 1:17 - (19) For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: (20) not with (l) wisdom of words, lest the (21) cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

(19) The taking away of an objection: that he gave not himself to baptize many amongst them: not for the contempt of baptism, but because he was mainly occupied in delivering the doctrine, and committed those that received his doctrine to others to be baptized. And so he declared sufficiently how far he was from all ambition: whereas on the other hand they, whom he reprehends, as though they gathered disciples to themselves and not to Christ, bragged most ambitiously of numbers, which they had baptized.

(20) Now he turns himself to the teachers themselves, who pleased themselves in brave and glory-seeking eloquence, to the end that they might draw more disciples after them. He openly confesses that he was not similar to them, opposing gravely, as it became an apostle, his example against their perverse judgments: so that this is another place in this epistle with regard to the observing of a godly simplicity both in words and sentences in teaching the Gospel.

(l) With eloquence: which Paul casts off from himself not only as unnecessary, but also as completely contrary to the office of his apostleship: and yet Paul had this kind of eloquence, but it was heavenly, not of man, and void of fancy words.

(21) The reason why he did not use the pomp of words and fancy speech: because it was God's will to bring the world to his obedience by that way, by which the most foolish among men might understand that this work was done by God himself, without the skill of man. Therefore as salvation is set forth to us in the Gospel by the cross of Christ, which nothing is more contemptible than, and more far from life, so God would have the manner of the preaching of the cross, most different from those means with which men do use to draw and entice others, either to hear or believe: therefore it pleased him by a certain kind of most wise folly, to triumph over the most foolish wisdom of the world, as he had said before by Isaiah that he would. And by this we may gather that both these teachers who were puffed up with ambitious eloquence, and also their hearers, strayed far away from the goal and mark of their calling.

 

[KMK]

Who would want to take credit for the church at Corinth? I would be like "Don't blame me for that mess! Blame Apollos!"

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

One thing in the argument that is missing is that Paul may not have baptized but they were baptized. The glorying of being baptized by someone evidently became important instead of who they were baptized into. I don't believe the importance of baptism is negated by Pauls statement. Paul is revealing their carnality here and that he has no fight in this affair because he is speaking from a neutral position.

Kudo's to Richard of the United Kingdom. AV1611

 

[Contra_Mundum]

One thing in the argument that is missing is that Paul may not have baptized but they were baptized.

Exactly. Kudos to Randy. All Paul does is think of the two that he did baptize (and backtracks to note one family he forgot). If baptism was uncommon/practically unknown, the people there wouldn't have been able to interpret that portion of chapter 1, or 10:2, or 12:13, or 15:29.

Now, anyone who can settle that last one for ME, I would really appreciate that! If only I had Paul around to teach me what he taught the Corinthians about baptism!