A
AlexausXanda
Guest
Does Paul in 1Cor 1:17 down play the need for baptism?!
- Status
M
MrZoom
Guest
Of course not.
All Christians are called to share the Gospel in some way, but not all are called to baptize. That doesn’t mean baptism isn’t important.
All Christians are called to share the Gospel in some way, but not all are called to baptize. That doesn’t mean baptism isn’t important.
L
LittleFlower378
Guest
Maybe Paul is talking about the baptizer not the baptized.
Last edited:
E
Elf01
Guest
I Cor 1: 14-17 (RSVCE)
I think Paul is afraid that baptizing himself may have moved the focus from Jesus to him or and that those he had baptized would use it to gain a leadership position in the community.
I assume your main concern is I was not sent to baptize. Anyone who has water and knows the formula can baptize. It takes other skills to preach, so Paul focused on spreading the gospel and let members of the community baptize.
Funny, I see it the opposite way.
L
LittleFlower378
Guest
I went back and read the whole verse. Here the people in the community are boasting in who baptizes them. Since Appolos is an ellequant preacher people are boasting as if Appolos baptism was better than Paul’s or others. It’s like those going around boasting they were baptized by the Cardinal as if they were better than those baptized by the parish priest. It’s mainly a verse against boasting and favoritism and pride.
Last edited:
H
Hodos
Guest
No, Paul was rebuking the Corinthians for engaging in sectarian squabbles based on who had baptized them. They seemed to think that they were called to follow a specific church leader rather than understanding that all who have been called by Christ into positions of authority within the Church are supposed to be submissive to Christ. Paul is only showing that each worker in the church has his own calling and ministry. His open happens to be as an evangelist or apostle, rather than as an elder in a Church responsible for catechizing and baptizing those within that local congregation. This kind of continues in 1 Corinthians 3 when he talks about many workers performing different functions in the harvest of the church, or in the building of the church.
A
AugustTherese
Guest
Like following Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, et. al.?
G
Genesis315
Guest
Yep. Your interpretation is what is in the Haydock commentary, for example.
I think there was a problem of people thinking being baptized by a particular person was more prestigious or better in some way and he didn’t want to feed into that.
Last edited:
G
Gorgias
Guest
It’s not a matter of skill, but of ministry. Many can pour water, but not all baptize. Many can talk, but not all preach.
H
Hodos
Guest
Or the Pope or bishop when he departs from doctrine
Last edited:
A
AugustTherese
Guest
I didn’t know the Pope could infallibly excommunicate himself.
H
Hodos
Guest
Well, if we agree that the Church is the community of believers in Jesus Christ who steadfastly hold to his word, I would say it is certainly possible. I have seen the little diagram where you attempt to show the divergence of different Christian denominations from the Roman Catholic Church. It is an interesting drawing. The problem, is that given the scripture, one could say that your baseline could theoretically be curved off the standard of what God’s word says and would require correction.
A
AugustTherese
Guest
If you acknowledge that all of His words were not recorded in Scripture and that Scripture is not the sole means of revelation and sole norm for promulgating doctrine, then we can establish a base for determining who is and who isn’t ‘steadfastly hold[ing] to his word’.
H
Hodos
Guest
I absolutely acknowledge that not all of Jesus words were captured in scripture. So given that you are making the claim that we are missing something, please fill us in. Provide a quote of a parable from Jesus that wasn’t captured in scripture. Or feel free to provide a Petrine or Pauline passage that wasn’t quoted in scripture. I’ll wait. Also, provide evidence that said quote can be traced back to the apostles or to Christ. The point is, I keep hearing all these grand claims to additional revelation in order to set scripture aside, but the scripture was the objective artifact of the teaching of the apostles.
To all those on here who genuinely want to discuss scripture instead of looking for excuses to spill blood on their theological sword, I apologize. As you can see from above, my intent was to confirm the original poster’s belief that what they had heard was misguided. Unfortunately, there are some who use any excuse they may find to promote discord rather than rejoice in what we agree on.
To all those on here who genuinely want to discuss scripture instead of looking for excuses to spill blood on their theological sword, I apologize. As you can see from above, my intent was to confirm the original poster’s belief that what they had heard was misguided. Unfortunately, there are some who use any excuse they may find to promote discord rather than rejoice in what we agree on.
Last edited:
A
AugustTherese
Guest
Where did I ever even hint or allude to that?
H
Hodos
Guest
Oh, so then we have in fact received the same revelation and the scripture which is the record of that revelation is what norms our understanding of the apostolic faith.
J
jcrichton
Guest
Hi!
I think that you are missing the point.
He turns them to the reality of Christ’s Body: One.
He offers his Commission as separated from that of the other Apostles who actually did Receive the Great Commission:
Maran atha!
Angel
I think that you are missing the point.
St. Paul is speaking to the schism which is taking place in the infant Church… he rejects any attempt to claim him (Paul) as the source of Salvation.
He turns them to the reality of Christ’s Body: One.
He offers his Commission as separated from that of the other Apostles who actually did Receive the Great Commission:
St. Paul’s Commission, while very similar to that of the Twelve, is this:
Now, look at what actually took place when Saul was given his Commission:
Do you actually think that St. Paul would be as progressive as those modern “Christians” who believe that Baptism is a mere symbolic gesture and Teach against Baptism?
Maran atha!
Angel
J
jcrichton
Guest
I think that you miss a decade or so of Oral Teaching… what then? Do we make that the silent (dark ages) of Apostolic Teaching or did Teaching took place?
Maran atha!
Angel
Last edited:
H
Hodos
Guest
Well, again, elucidate the oral tradition that we are missing. Paul’s oral gospel didn’t contradict what he wrote in his epistles. If your argument is that there was additional revelation, provide the quotes from Paul that have been defined by the Church that are not located in his epistles. If you can’t, that’s fine, then let’s return to the discussion of the teaching that we do have that we can objectively evaluate together, in the reading of the scripture.
Just to put things in perspective, nothing I said in my initial post is being argued against thus far. So far, the division is being created by your pizo.
Just to put things in perspective, nothing I said in my initial post is being argued against thus far. So far, the division is being created by your pizo.
Last edited:
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
St Paul is trying to eliminate any “cult of personality”.
- Status