1 Cor 1:17ff & Baptism

[garysibio]

As Catholics we put a lot of importance on baptism yet St. Paul’s statement here seems to downplay its importance. It seems to me that, since baptism is ordinarily necessary for the forgiveness of sins, why wouldn’t St. Paul, an apostle, want to baptize as many people as possible?

Gary

 

[tobinatorstark]

As Catholics we put a lot of importance on baptism yet St. Paul’s statement here seems to downplay its importance. It seems to me that, since baptism is ordinarily necessary for the forgiveness of sins, why wouldn’t St. Paul, an apostle, want to baptize as many people as possible?

Gary

Here is 1 Corinthians 1:17 from the Douay-Rheims. Not understanding the ff stuff?? Is that a typo???

For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not in wisdom of speech, lest the cross of Christ should be made void.

Here is an in depth explanation of 1 Corinthians 1:17

Ver. 17. &c. Not to baptize. That is, the first and principal intent, in my vocation to the apostleship, was to preach the gospel, before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel. (Acts chap. ix. 15.) To baptize is common to all, but to preach is peculiarly the function of an apostle. (Estius; Menochius; Grotius) — I was sent to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of speech, and as he says in the next chapter, (ver. 13.) not in the persuasive words of human wisdom, &c. The Spirit of God, which guided the thoughts and pen of St. Paul, and the other sacred writers, inspired them to deliver the gospel-truths with great simplicity, without the ornaments of an artificial human eloquence, lest the cross of Christ should be made void, lest the conversion of the world might be attributed to any human means, and not to the power of God, and of Christ crucified. (Witham)

 

[garysibio]

Here is 1 Corinthians 1:17 from the Douay-Rheims. Not understanding the ff stuff?? Is that a typo???

For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not in wisdom of speech, lest the cross of Christ should be made void.

Here is an in depth explanation of 1 Corinthians 1:17

Ver. 17. &c. Not to baptize. That is, the first and principal intent, in my vocation to the apostleship, was to preach the gospel, before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel. (Acts chap. ix. 15.) To baptize is common to all, but to preach is peculiarly the function of an apostle. (Estius; Menochius; Grotius) — I was sent to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of speech, and as he says in the next chapter, (ver. 13.) not in the persuasive words of human wisdom, &c. The Spirit of God, which guided the thoughts and pen of St. Paul, and the other sacred writers, inspired them to deliver the gospel-truths with great simplicity, without the ornaments of an artificial human eloquence, lest the cross of Christ should be made void, lest the conversion of the world might be attributed to any human means, and not to the power of God, and of Christ crucified. (Witham)

ff after a Bible reference means ‘and the verses following.’

I find the explanation you provided more confusing than enlightening. It seems to imply that apostles were nothing more than missionaries (not to denigrate the role of missionaries). This is what I believed when I was an Evangelical Protestant. The apostles are supposed to be the first bishops/priests of the Church. Aren’t they the very ones who should be baptizing in addition to preaching the Gospel?

Gary

 

[Nita]

ff after a Bible reference means ‘and the verses following.’

I find the explanation you provided more confusing than enlightening. It seems to imply that apostles were nothing more than missionaries (not to denigrate the role of missionaries). This is what I believed when I was an Evangelical Protestant. The apostles are supposed to be the first bishops/priests of the Church.

Preaching was critical. Only after hearing the gospel and believing it would people even seek to be baptized.

Keep in mind this is at the very beginning of the New Covenant. There were no “cradle Catholics” until the adult parents were first brought to faith and then sought Baptism for themselves and their families.

*Romans 10:14-15 But how are men to call upon him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher? And how can men preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach good news!” *

Aren’t they the very ones who should be baptizing in addition to preaching the Gospel?

Paul did do some baptizing, but the primary mission God intended for him was preaching to the Gentiles.

Paul was in Corinth for a total of about two years. Considering these were pagans he was preaching to, it probably took some time to convert them and then to complete the catechesis needed before they could be baptized.

 

[Zenas]

Don’t sell Paul short on baptism. In Acts 19 we learn of his encounter with some 12 men at Ephesus who had been baptized improperly. Paul rebaptized them and laid hands on them, and they recieved the Holy Spirit.

It happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus, and found some disciples.
He said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said to him, “No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.” And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” And they said, “Into John’s baptism.” Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying. There were in all about twelve men.

The point is that if Paul regarded baptism as unimportant he would never have inquired about the nature of their baptism. Paul was a believer in baptismal regeneration.

 

[garysibio]

Don’t sell Paul short on baptism. In Acts 19 we learn of his encounter with some 12 men at Ephesus who had been baptized improperly. Paul rebaptized them and laid hands on them, and they recieved the Holy Spirit. The point is that if Paul regarded baptism as unimportant he would never have inquired about the nature of their baptism. Paul was a believer in baptismal regeneration.

I think you misunderstand me. I’m not saying that Paul considered baptism unimportant. I’m just trying to reconcile his statement here with that importance. I’m just trying to get a better understanding of this passage.

Gary

 

[Nita]

As I said in my previous post, Paul considered preaching to the Gentiles his primary “work” as an apostle - bringing them knowledge of Jesus which could lead to a desire for conversion and entry into the Church. Others could complete the catechesis and then baptize. I think Paul’s words in 1 Cor 3:6 support this logic.

1 Cor 3:6 I planted the seed and Apollos watered it, but God made it grow.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I think you misunderstand me. I’m not saying that Paul considered baptism unimportant. I’m just trying to reconcile his statement here with that importance. I’m just trying to get a better understanding of this passage.

Gary

I second Nita. Paul is referencing his primary mission, to preach. Paul is not trumping Jesus’ explicit command to baptize:Matthew 28:19 Therefore, as you go, disciple people in all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit

 

[garysibio]

As I said in my previous post, Paul considered preaching to the Gentiles his primary “work” as an apostle - bringing them knowledge of Jesus which could lead to a desire for conversion and entry into the Church. Others could complete the catechesis and then baptize. I think Paul’s words in 1 Cor 3:6 support this logic.

1 Cor 3:6 I planted the seed and Apollos watered it, but God made it grow.

I’m trying to figure out why, in light of the saving nature of baptism, would St. Paul leave it to others. Under normal circumstances baptism is necessary for salvation. It is also the way of entrance into the Church which, as you point out, was his primary work. It seems to me that Paul would want them baptized as quickly as possible. Also, although anyone can baptize in an emergency, it is usually done by a priest. St. Paul was the priest there at the time.

I can understand St. Paul saying that there was nothing special about being baptized by him as opposed to being baptized by someone else but in this passage he says he wasn’t sent to baptize. I’m trying to figure out why. It seems like something a Protestant might bring up to oppose the Church’s teaching on baptism.

Gary

 

[Nita]

I’m trying to figure out why, in light of the saving nature of baptism, would St. Paul leave it to others. Under normal circumstances baptism is necessary for salvation. It is also the way of entrance into the Church which, as you point out, was his primary work. It seems to me that Paul would want them baptized as quickly as possible. Also, although anyone can baptize in an emergency, it is usually done by a priest. St. Paul was the priest there at the time.

I can understand St. Paul saying that there was nothing special about being baptized by him as opposed to being baptized by someone else but in this passage he says he wasn’t sent to baptize. I’m trying to figure out why. It seems like something a Protestant might bring up to oppose the Church’s teaching on baptism.

Gary

God does not give the same gifts to all. Paul was given the gift to evangelize gentiles. This was a task of huge proportions in a couple of ways:

1. area wise. It required a lot of travel if Paul was to preach to the Gentiles. If he stayed in one place for a long time, others areas would not have received the message. Remember how few there were at the beginning who were knowledgeable enough about the new faith to be able to preach and teach it to others. If Paul were to have remained in one place until all who would ever want to convert from that town had been baptized, he might have ended up spending all his years in just one place.
2. the amount of catechetics involved with those who had no previous knowledge of the Old Testament truths. Adults are not baptized (except in emergency) until they have been taught the truths of the faith and they accept them as truth. Currently RCIA takes about a year, and most times this is for people who are already believing Christians and are familiar with Scripture! In some of the ECF writings you can see how important it was to them that catechumens be properly prepared.

 

[aball1035]

Are there any good websites where Catholics defend Baptism? There are a number of Protestant sources that say Baptism isn’t necessary but are there Catholic sites in response to those?

 

[garysibio]

God does not give the same gifts to all. Paul was given the gift to evangelize gentiles. This was a task of huge proportions in a couple of ways:

1. area wise. It required a lot of travel if Paul was to preach to the Gentiles. If he stayed in one place for a long time, others areas would not have received the message. Remember how few there were at the beginning who were knowledgeable enough about the new faith to be able to preach and teach it to others. If Paul were to have remained in one place until all who would ever want to convert from that town had been baptized, he might have ended up spending all his years in just one place.
2. the amount of catechetics involved with those who had no previous knowledge of the Old Testament truths. Adults are not baptized (except in emergency) until they have been taught the truths of the faith and they accept them as truth. Currently RCIA takes about a year, and most times this is for people who are already believing Christians and are familiar with Scripture! In some of the ECF writings you can see how important it was to them that catechumens be properly prepared.

Read the account in Acts where Philip baptizes the Ethiopian eunuch. He was baptized immediately. There was no period of preparation. The same thing is true of the converts on the day of Pentecost. They did not go through RCIA. St. Paul also says he did baptize some in Corinth so, apparently, he was there long enough.

Gary

 

[SHW]

Read the account in Acts where Philip baptizes the Ethiopian eunuch. He was baptized immediately. There was no period of preparation. The same thing is true of the converts on the day of Pentecost. They did not go through RCIA. St. Paul also says he did baptize some in Corinth so, apparently, he was there long enough. Gary

Hi Gary,
Paul did baptize people but his remark was made in order to end disputes about the unimportance of “who” baptized “whom.” What mattered was that persons did need to be baptized in order to wash away their sins.

Acts 22:16 “And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.”

Originally Posted by NotWorthy on another thread “The Necessity of Baptism” #94

“Paul was glad that he didn’t baptize in Corinth, in the hopes that people wouldn’t start the “Church of Paul”. This verse deals with the factionalism that was occurring in Corinth. If Paul had baptized people, then they would have mistakenly been drawn to him rather than the One that he was trying to lead them to.”

Originally posted by SHW #95: “Early Christian leaders had the same problems we have today; there were just fewer people on earth causing these problems!”

Titus 3:9 “But avoid foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and useless.”

Galatians 5:19-21 “Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21 envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.”

SHW

 

[garysibio]

Hi Gary,
Paul did baptize people but his remark was made in order to end disputes about the unimportance of “who” baptized “whom.” What mattered was that persons did need to be baptized in order to wash away their sins.

Acts 22:16 “And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.”

Originally posted by SHW #95: “Early Christian leaders had the same problems we have today; there were just fewer people on earth causing these problems!”

Titus 3:9 “But avoid foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and useless.”

Galatians 5:19-21 “Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21 envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.”

SHW

I understand what Paul is trying to do here and I certainly believe that he knew what baptism was about, what I’m trying to understand is why, being a priest/bishop, he wouldn’t have had more of a role in baptism. A Protestant reading this passage could claim that Paul is downplaying the necessity of baptism.

As a Catholic I believe that, under normal circumstances, baptism is necessary for salvation but that is what makes Paul’s apparent attitude towards it so confusing.

Gary

 

[CATHOLIC62]

Paul stayed in Corinth for two years, although he did not write his two letters to them until he left. He wrote those letters to bring them back to what the young Catholic Church was teaching. Research which letters he wrote while he was under house arrest and could not be out Baptising?

 

[Nita]

Read the account in Acts where Philip baptizes the Ethiopian eunuch. He was baptized immediately. There was no period of preparation. The same thing is true of the converts on the day of Pentecost. They did not go through RCIA. St. Paul also says he did baptize some in Corinth so, apparently, he was there long enough.

The Day of Pentecost was a day of miracles.
But, regardless, those who were converted and baptized that day were Jews - as was the Ethiopian eunuch who had gone to Jerusalem to worship and was reading Isaiah on his return home. A lot less catechizing would be required for Jews. Paul usually preached first to the Jews. There may have been a few Jews in Corinth who converted, but the Corinthian converts were predominantly from the pagan population.

I am aware that there could be pagan converts that did not receive lengthy instruction. Don’t know for sure, but I’m assuming the jailer and his household in Acts 16:25ff were not Jewish. It appears one night was all the time Paul could safely allot for their instruction under the circumstances.

But I guess none of this helps answer your question about Paul preaching versus baptizing.

 

[SHW]

I understand what Paul is trying to do here and I certainly believe that he knew what baptism was about, what I’m trying to understand is why, being a priest/bishop, he wouldn’t have had more of a role in baptism. A Protestant reading this passage could claim that Paul is downplaying the necessity of baptism.

As a Catholic I believe that, under normal circumstances, baptism is necessary for salvation but that is what makes Paul’s apparent attitude towards it so confusing.

Gary

Paul did baptize but this was not his main “calling” for the Church’s growth.

Baptism was not his primary mission. He had priests and deacons to help him with these duties. Paul’s main mission was to evangelize.

2 Timothy 1:10-12 “the gospel, 11 to which I was appointed a preacher, an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.”

Ephesians 4:11-12 “And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ,”

1 Timothy 3:10 “But let these also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons, being found blameless.”

Philippians 1:1 “To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:”

Paul was simply angry with their quarreling and this is why he said what he did. Everyone must be baptized but it does not matter who baptizes whom. A person receives no extra status by being baptized by certain persons such as Apollo or Paul, etc.

SHW

 

[garysibio]

Paul stayed in Corinth for two years, although he did not write his two letters to them until he left. He wrote those letters to bring them back to what the young Catholic Church was teaching. Research which letters he wrote while he was under house arrest and could not be out Baptising?

I don’t remember the reference but St. Paul did not stop spreading the gospel when he was in prison. He preached to his jailers. If any were converted from their paganism, I’m sure he baptized them with whatever water was available. Even if he was not able to baptize them, that would not have any bearing on his actions - or lack of action - while he was in Corinth and certainly able to. (I’ve been to Corinth. There’s a lot of water there.)

I understand why Paul wrote the epistles but that doesn’t change anything regarding the passage I am wondering about.

Gary

 

[CATHOLIC62]

Read what I wrote. Paul did not stop spreading the Gospel, he was writing the gospels in prison. I’m sure he baptised because he did that when ever he had chance outside.

 

[aball1035]

As Catholics we put a lot of importance on baptism yet St. Paul’s statement here seems to downplay its importance. It seems to me that, since baptism is ordinarily necessary for the forgiveness of sins, why wouldn’t St. Paul, an apostle, want to baptize as many people as possible?

Gary

I would say that St. Paul had many followers (other priests and deacons) traveling along with him. He being the most knowledgeable about the Church teachings would’ve had the duty to teach the unbelievers simply because he was the best main for the job. The followers helped, but them being less knowledgeable had other duties such as baptism.

Correct me if I’m wrong.

Hope this helps