David Ray
Those who reject the truth regarding the purpose of baptism sometimes point to Paul’s statement in First Corinthians 1:13, 17 in attempt to prove that baptism isn’t essential to one’s salvation. There he says “I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius… For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel….” “Therefore,” they say, “baptism isn’t essential.”
First of all, nothing in this passage speaks of the purpose of baptism (for this, we can turn to Acts 2:38, 22:16; Romans 6:3-4; First Corinthians 12:13; First Peter 3:21, et. al.). Therefore, this passage does not and cannot teach a non-essential nature of baptism. What does it teach?
Paul speaks of two responsibilities in verse 17: preach and baptize. This is exactly what Jesus commanded the apostles to do (Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15-16). These were the two parts of the necessary evangelistic work. Both were necessary when Jesus spoke it and both were necessary when Paul wrote it. Nothing in First Corinthians 1 suggests otherwise.
Paul said his job was primarily to preach the gospel rather than to baptize. Why? Because God was revealing truth to him and through him; i.e., he was inspired (1 Cor. 2). Inspiration wasn’t required in order to baptize; therefore, any of the brethren could do it. But this in no way minimized its importance.
But, why did Paul even bring up baptism? The topic was church division. The Corinthian brethren were dividing over their loyalty to different men, even though these men weren’t divided (v. 12). Paul urged them to “speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (v. 10).
So, why did Paul bring up baptism? What did it have to do with unity or division? If we assume a non-essential purpose of baptism, then it seems there’s no good answer to this question.
However, when we read the scriptures referenced above, it makes perfect sense. Baptism is the point when one’s sins are forgiven and he is therefore saved and added to the body of Christ (Acts 2:47; 1 Cor. 12:13). Paul’s reference to baptism here harmonizes with this. It makes sense that these prideful brethren, knowing the importance of baptism, would divide over who had baptized them. This is why Paul was glad he’d only baptized a few, so people wouldn’t be claiming to have been baptized in Paul’s name (i.e., saved and added to the church by Paul). If baptism were as meaningless as so many folks believe, Paul’s point would have been just as meaningless!
Going outside of this passage, we should also be reminded what Paul said about the purpose of his own baptism, per the instructions given him by Ananias. “And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). From this, we see that the purpose of baptism had not changed from the time Jesus commanded it (Mark 16:16) until the time Paul received it. And it hasn’t changed today.
