Question on 1 Corinthians 1:17

[Stylteralmaldo]

1 Cor 1:17:

For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with the wisdom of human eloquence, so that the cross of Christ might not be emptied of its meaning.

I ran across a web site that was pointing out the Catholic Church’s supposed “errors” on its teaching on Baptism.

It stated that according to 1 Cor 1:17, if baptism was necessary for salvation, Paul would have been sent to baptize and that this passage clearly states that he wasn’t.

Please help.

Thanks and God bless!

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Stylteralmaldo:

. . . if baptism was necessary for salvation, Paul would have been sent to baptize . . .QUOTE] Why does one assume that? Paul clearly states, 1 Corinthians 12:4-11

There are different kinds of spiritual gifts but the same Spirit;
5 there are different forms of service but the same Lord; 6 there are different workings but the same God who produces all of them in everyone. 7 To each individual the manifestation of the Spirit is given for some benefit. 8 To one is given through the Spirit the expression of wisdom; to another the expression of knowledge according to the same Spirit; 9 to another faith by the same Spirit; to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit; 10 to another mighty deeds; to another prophecy; to another discernment of spirits; to another varieties of tongues; to another interpretation of tongues. 11 But one and the same Spirit produces all of these, distributing them individually to each person as he wishes.

that no one person is to do everything. He expands on this in another quotation, that I can’t find at the moment, where he notes that each has a mission. One sows; another reaps. This is necessary that no one person can claim credit for the good that results. Each does his bit but the harvest is of the Lord. Otherwise one has a personality cult where the missionary does all and is regarded as the redeemer.

 

[Pug]

Maybe Joe is thinking of John 4:35-38 with one person sowing and another reaping. Or another similar sort of thing comes from 1cor3:4-7 about Paul planting and Apollos watering. Anyway, we know Paul didn’t do everything himself…he had someone write his letters for him.

I do note that the Corinthians were baptized, even if Paul himself only baptized a few of them personally. see 1cor 1:13-16. I think this implies that they were baptized.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

Thanks all for the help. So it seems that Paul was the “preacher” of the gospel message of Christ while others were doing the baptizing.

 

[liber8ed217]

Think of the theif crucified next to Jesus… He was given salvation yet wasn’t baptized… is baptism necessary for salvation or is baptism simply a profession of faith?

 

[mercygate]

liber8ed217:

Think of the theif crucified next to Jesus… He was given salvation yet wasn’t baptized… is baptism necessary for salvation or is baptism simply a profession of faith?

The thief on the cross received an extraordinary promise.

The ordinary means of grace is through the Church, by Baptism in the Name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Because God **may **act, so to speak, outside himself, there may be instances of salvation without Baptism, but we have no guarantee of that – only the speculative hope.

The crucified thief promised paradise is a very poor argument for the superfluity of Baptism – especially since it directly contradicts Our Lord’s own words and the promise came before the great commission.

 

[Sei]

Well, here’s what the catholic church has to say about baptism:

“The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.” Pg. 320, #1257

“The Church does not know of any other means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude…” Pg. 320, #1257 They also say that:

“The faithful are born anew by Baptism…” Pg. 311, #1212

“Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, and are incorporated into the Church…” Pg. 312, #1213

But the bible says that:

"But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:" John 1:12

The catholic church also says this of baptism and sins:

“Baptism not only purifies from all sins, but also makes the neophyte ‘a new creature,’ an adopted son of God, who has become a ‘partaker of the divine nature,’ member of Christ and co-heir with him, and a temple of the Holy Spirit.” Pg. 322, #1265 “By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin.” Pg. 321, #1263 (See pg. 257, #985)

But the bible dissagrees:

“In whom we have redemption through his (Christ’s) blood, the forgiveness of sins…” Ephesians 1:7

Catholics try to say that baptism can be done at any time but the bible says otherwise:

“And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” Acts 8:36-37

Try to find that in your catholic bible. Acts 8:37 is just a footnote. Why? Because it teachs something contrary to your churchs traditions.

All throughout scripture people believed first, then they were baptised:

"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house… And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway." Acts 16:30, 31, 33

“And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.” Acts 18:8

“… they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.” Acts 2:41

This is especially important for infant baptism. A child can’t believe yet so baptism is worthless. Baptism does not save, because Jesus said that only He saves. If baptism was neccesary for salvation He would have said so.

 

[mkw]

Has it ever accured to anyone NOT believing in infant baptism, that those in scripture being baptised were the FIRST GENERATION Christians?..Of course they were adults.

For ANY adult, and yes, even in the Catholic faith. For an adult to be baptised he/she must confess belief first.

There are many far more articulate and a whole lot smarter then I am who can better explain this.

 

[Sei]

So why must they first confess faith but it doesn’t affect others? Explain why an adult must make a confession of faith and yet baptism can still be bestowed upon a baby, who can make no confession of faith, and is having “faith” completely forced upon them? Is that Christ-like? To bind someone into a religion or faith before they even can comprehend faith? Just honestly explain the reasoning.

 

[chrisb]

Peace be with you all,

I’ll just throw in a few verses and comments if only to offer my view on this.

"Repent," Peter said to them, "and be baptized*, each of you, in the name of Jesus the Messiah for the forgiveness of your* sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. - Acts 2:38

We read Peter saying to “repent” and “be” baptized for the forgiveness of your sins. Of course, we can’t determine from this verse with act constituted the forgiveness of sins, repentence or baptism? Well, we can see a little earlier this verse which at the very least yields some favor for the Catholic argument that Baptism does in fact “wash away your sins”.

And now, why delay? Get up and be baptized*, and wash away your sins by calling on His name.*’ Act 22:16

I know a lot of Protestants who simply discard Baptism as merely an outward sign of their Christian Profession but I would suggest that Baptism is a death and a resurrection into new “creaturehood” and the “putting on of Christ” as our true nature.

Or are you unaware that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized* into His death?* Rom 6:3

There is so much to delve into with Baptism that it’s amazing to me that so many discredit it as nothing but an empty ritual.

Peace, Love and Blessings,

 

[Sei]

"Get up and be baptized*, and wash away your sins by calling on His name.*’ Act 22:16"

It says “was away your sins by calling on His name” It doesn’t say “Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins by being baptized” It’s not saying that baptizm washs away sins. Its saying calling on His name wash’s away sins. All you have to do is read it and it’s pretty obvious. Espcially since it says “wash away your sins by calling on His name” it makes it pretty clear that calling on His name is what washs away.

 

[JimO]

Sei:

Well, here’s what the catholic church has to say about baptism:

It appears that you are new to the forums (you signed up today?). Welcome. It’s late and I for one need to go home and cannot answer your post point for point. If someone else hasn’t by tomorrow morning, I’ll give it my best shot. There have been many threads like this where Scripture “sound bites” are thrown back and forth. If done in an aggressive or insulting manner, it’s a waste of time. Your tone bordered on, let’s say, impoliteness.

Each of the verses you quoted from Scripture follows many verses and is followed by many. The first step is to examine the entire passages to keep things in context.

An interesting study is to look at John 3 (this is a cursory treatment of it to save time). Many Protestants try to dismiss this by suggesting that Jesus was speaking of amniotic fluid in verse 5. However, after his discussion of baptism with Nocodemus, what is the very next thing recorded (verse 22) “Later on, Jesus and his disciples came into Judean territory, and he spent some time with them there baptizing.” This is the only place recorded in Scripture where Jesus baptizes. An interesting place for this passage. This puts the previous passages into context and clearly indicates that verse 5 was not referring to amniotic fluid (which is also inconsistent with the Greek in the verse), but to water baptism.

So, we can go back in forth like this all day. If you have come to this forum to have an intelligent and respectful discussion, great! Let’s deal with one thing at a time and work through them. But, if you (like many others) have come here just to tell us Catholics how wrong we are, I’m afraid you’ll either be ignored or the threads will get nasty and ultimately be suspended by the moderators.

Blesssings

 

[Vincent]

Sei:

Baptism does not save, because Jesus said that only He saves.

There’s no need to put a dichotomy between the two. Scripture doesn’t:

“Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 3:21).

 

[Pug]

"Get up and be baptized**, and wash away your sins by calling on His name.’ Act 22:16"

It says “was away your sins by calling on His name” It doesn’t say “Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins by being baptized”

Which version of the bible is this a quote from? I am not familiar with it. It is not the NIV, the NAB, the NASB, the KJV, the RSV, etc.

NIV Acts 22:16 And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.’

 

[Sei]

It seems to me that when they say baptism they can mean a couple things. Whenever they say baptism with water we all know what they’re talking about. Those two verses in question seem to be talking about the ressurection of christ. Baptism is symbolic of the death, burial, and ressurection of Jesus, so maybe they’re talking about washing away your sins through his ressurection by calling on him. Maybe that’s why Acts is worded like that (And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.) saying wash away your sins by calling on the name of the lord and show that you believe by being baptised. Maybe that’s why first Peter also talks about the ressurection (“Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ”). All I’m saying is that in romans when it explains how to get saved, baptism or sacrements are no where to be found. All it says is that:

9That 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.
10For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
13For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

I’d just figure if any of that was an honest requirement for salvation he would have mentioned it, and not said “if you confess christ and believe in your heart, then you’re saved”

And I don’t think I have a bad tone. At least I don’t mean to. It’s not like I’m posting because I’m pissed off or hate anyone. I’m doing it because I do care. If I didn’t care I wouldn’t spend any time at all on here. I didn’t think by saying “Well here’s what the catholic church has to say about baptism” was a bad tone. I was just being serious, that was a quote from the catholic church. Oh well, no harm meant anyway. Sorry if I came off mad or anything.

 

[JimO]

Sei:

9That 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.

I’d just figure if any of that was an honest requirement for salvation he would have mentioned it, and not said “if you confess christ and believe in your heart, then you’re saved”.

In your post, you illustrated how difficult it can be interpreting a single verse, when there are several phrases. Which phrase modifies which - critical to the meaning of the entire verse. Just a point, note the difference in the verse from Romans you quoted and your paraphrase of it (in bold above). One way to interpret the verse is that if you confess with your mouth and believe in your heart, then you are “on the way to being saved”, or it could mean “you are saved.”

It is this type of problem that always makes me go back and look at all the passages dealing with a subject and take them together. In one place, Paul might have been addressing people who valued form over substance and were emphasizing baptism over faith. In Peter’s case, maybe he was addressing those who didn’t think baptism was all that important. That’s what I meant by “sound bites” of Scripture in my earlier post. We (and I do mean all of us) can get focused on one passage and fail to see complementary passages elsewhere.

Atheists point to these “apparent contradictions” as evidence that Scripture is inconsistent. In my line of work (geology) I argue with these types all the time. That has forced me to take a broader look at Scripture. I have found that what often appear to be contradictory concepts - such as contrasting Romans with James in looking at “works” - are actually complementary. They aren’t mutually exclusive.

The important thing with baptism is that with it must come faith. We need to be baptized, that is clear in Scripture. Is it really worth arguing over why we have to be baptized? There are certainly more subtantial differences to discuss.

Sei:

And I don’t think I have a bad tone.

My apologies. It’s just that we get folks who register, sign on and jump into the fray, often with the intent of telling us Catholics that we aren’t saved and that the Church is the “whore of Babylon”. And, given the limited nature of written communication, passion can often come across in a more negative manner. Thank you for caring. As a life-long Catholic with many Protestant friends of various denominations, I have spent a lot of time dispelling misconceptions. Many Protestants that I talk with are a bit shocked when I tell them that I have accepted Jesus as my personal Savior and that it’s all about Him.

Sorry for misunderstanding your intentions. Indeed, welcome!

 

[Sei]

See, that’s what I’m talking about. I don’t believe that Catholics can’t be saved. Same thing for other denominations. It’s just that people have to see that Jesus is the only one, He’s the key. It’s just people tend to get wrapped up in traditions and their church. It’s not traditions or church that saves, it’s Jesus, and I praise Him that you’ve seen that.

 

[JimO]

Sei:

See, that’s what I’m talking about. I don’t believe that Catholics can’t be saved. Same thing for other denominations. It’s just that people have to see that Jesus is the only one, He’s the key. It’s just people tend to get wrapped up in traditions and their church. It’s not traditions or church that saves, it’s Jesus, and I praise Him that you’ve seen that.

You are absolutely right. Unfortunately, a lot of Catholics get wrapped up in debating traditions that aren’t relevent to salvation, which gives others the impression that we don’t focus on Jesus. However, I think that if you probe a little deeper, you will find that many of those same Catholics do have a relationship with Christ and do know that it is only because of what He did on the cross that we have any hope. I know that I fancy myself an amateur apologist and get all excited about the issue at hand. I’m trying to remember to put it all in perspective and that all true Christians are on the same “team”. But, I’m a work in progress.

God bless you Sei !

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

Sei, JimO, and others:

Thank you for the great discussion. I love hearing different perspectives on this because I want to learn as much as I can about God.

I do hope the ultimate conclusion that we come to is that God has the ability to apply graces upon us sacramentally. In this humble servent’s opinion, to say that baptism is merely symbolic is to say that God choses not to grace us in a tangible way as opposed to a representative (symbolic) way. God’s power is too great for me to view it any other way.

 

[Malachi4U]

So, according to the protestant logic you started this thread with. If I was a pilot and Delta Airlines sent me to fly a B737 from Salt Lake City to Las Vegas, does that mean I don’t need fuel in the plane? NO! It means the pilot flys the plane and the ground crew fuels the plane, the mechanices fix the plane, etc…

Again protestant logic proves wrong agian, or at least a double standard for using it. They assume want they want and deny the possibilty of anything that makes sense if they disagree with you?:whacky: