Why did Paul stop baptisiing?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Breezey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Breezey

Guest
Was is that baptism wasn’t relevant. He says it’s only one person he recalls baptising
 
Chapter and verse, please. I would have to know what you’re talking about to be able to answer the question.
 
I think the reference here is to 1 Cor. 1:14 (and surrounding verses). First, he is speaking to the Corinthians, not the whole Church. Essentially, there was a problem in the early Church, especially in Corinth, of people thinking baptism by an Apostle or other special individual was better than baptisms by others. He wanted to emphasize that it is Christ alone that gives baptism its value and so as not to create dissensions, he let others do it. Plus, as he says, his main ministry was preaching, both to people already baptized, and to the Gentiles, a role specific to his Apostleship (whereas anyone could baptize).
 
Last edited:
Yes that the verse it goes around 1 Corinthians chapter 1 vs 14 -17
 
Pls can you show me places in the bible that back up your statements
 
I just summed up what St. Paul himself says in that very chapter–the start of which addresses his letter to the Church in Corinth (being a Church, they would already be baptized for the most part) and then he describes the issue he wants to avoid:

1 Cor. 1:10 I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. 11 For it has been reported to me by Chlo′e’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brethren. 12 What I mean is that each one of you says, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apol′los,” or “I belong to Cephas,”[c] or “I belong to Christ.” 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I am thankful[d] that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Ga′ius; 15 lest any one should say that you were baptized in my name. 16 (I did baptize also the household of Steph′anas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any one else.) 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
 
Hi,

I have been told by other denominations that is one verse,

(1Co 1:17 ESV) For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

Is why baptism is not that important, otherwise Paul would be baptizing, and baptism is just a symbol that you are in their a member of their church.
 
Good point!

But he does say he’s glad he has only baptized a few there and emphasizes that’s not going to be the focus of what he’s doing. Some sects, like the Quakers, used these passages to infer that he was condemning baptism. Of course, even if he was saying he was no longer going to perform baptisms there, it in nowise is an indictment of baptism (in fact, it is because he wanted to emphasize its power irrespective of the minister).
 
No. Baptism was never irrelevant.

The people were arguing over WHO they were Baptized by.

As if that made you some sort of “super-Christian” to be baptized by one of the “all-stars”.

And St. Paul told them it was wrong.

That is why Jesus couldn’t Baptize people personally.

It would have introduced division even more because not only is Jesus an “all-star”,
but Jesus is THE proverbial “all-star”
being true God AND true Man.

If you look in John 4:1 you will see by implication, that although Jesus baptizes everyone who is being baptized, He baptizes NOBODY physically.

If He did, the people would argue saying “MY Baptism is better than YOUR baptism”.

Hope that helps.

God bless.

Cathoholic
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top