View Single Post
  #130  
Old 07-14-2009, 11:04 AM
GrowingPains GrowingPains is offline
Guest


 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 873
Re: Baptism from God's Perspective

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquila View Post
There is so much wrong with the above paragraph I'm not sure where to start. My wife's family is half Jewish. The "Jewish Proselyte Baptism" you speak of isn't in the Bible, it's a post-exilic tradition. In addition Jewish mikveh was to be performed nude, none of the baptisms of the Apostles or even the John the Baptist were part of this man made tradition.

Also Paul never said that he wasn't sent to baptize... you have to read it in context. Let's take a look. To the Corinthians Paul wrote...
I Corinthians 1:11-17
11For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
12Now 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.
13Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
14I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
15Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
16And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
17For 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.
The issue was that there were contentions among the Corinthians because they were boasting over who baptized them as though it made them more spiritual or more Christian. One was saying I'm of Paul, another, I'm of Apollos, and yet another, I'm of Christ. Paul then indicates that they were not baptized in these names, and definitely not his own because he wasn't crucified for them (an allusion to Jesus name baptism). Then Paul is thankful that out of the Corinthians he only baptized Crispus, Gaius, and the household of Stephanas. Paul was thankful because none could say he baptized in his own name. Paul then states that Paul was not sent to baptize, meaning to baptize making coverts after himself, but rather to preach the Gospel (which includes baptism - see Acts 2:38) lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

You have to take an entire passage and it's context into consideration. By just reading verse 17 one would think that Paul wasn't sent to baptize period... but in context we see that Paul meant he wasn't sent to baptize to make disciples after himself. We also know that this is an error because we see Paul baptizing new believers in the book of Acts:
(Acts 19:1-6 KJV)
(1) And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, (2) He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. (3) And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. (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. (6) And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
Paul preached the same Gospel that Peter preached on Pentecost. There is only one Gospel message. The only difference is that while Peter was called to preach to the Jews, Paul was called to preach to the Gentiles. Two distinct missional callings.
Reply With Quote