My Thoughts: Paul was not writing about his views on baptism. What he was doing was writing about a Church that had divided itself along the lines of which prominent church leaders they identified with. VS's 1:12-13 show us that they were labeling themselves by the names of Apollos, Cephas, Paul, and Christ.
When Paul said that he was thankful that he only baptized a few, he was saying so directly in response to the divisions that were taking place. That’s exactly what he says in 1:15 – “…so that no one would say you were baptized in my name.” He didn’t say he was thankful that they weren’t baptized. He was thankful that he didn’t baptize them so they couldn’t claim him as their savior or leader (vs1:13). His point was that he didn’t go there to make converts to Paul, but converts to Christ.
These are good points. The primary context is division, and he was thankful it wasn't him that baptized, lest that add to their sense of divisiveness.
I still wonder though in that he was sent to preach the Gospel, and not baptize, that the power is in the preaching, and we would go on to infer, not in baptizing.
I hope you can see why I am struggling to accept your "tradition" and "no longer significant" statements.
I don't fault you for thinking as you do. I realize that likely the majority of Christians would more readily agree with you than me, I think!
With that said I don't understand how you are equating baptism to "church tradition"? You also suggested "baptism no longer carried it's significance". Both those statements seem to me to be opposite of what Scripture says since
we are to follow in His footsteps (Jesus was baptized), Peters instruction to be baptized with water (Acts 10:47) and the Ethiopian Eunuch requested he be baptized by Phillip in water. Jesus gave us an example by being baptized, He said baptize, they did baptize and it has continued for 2,000 years. When one is commanded to do something that is not a tradition.....that is a commandment. I think it is "significant" to do what we are told and follow the instructions of the Apostles (
Luke 10:16).
Jesus was baptized with John's baptism, which then stopped being practiced.
Acts 19:1-5
1) And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
2) He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
3) And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
4) Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
5) When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
They had received John's baptism, but that wasn't considered the same, so they were baptized again.
Just like John's baptism was meant for a certain purpose, I think that early water baptism was likewise meant for a certain purpose, and that purpose does not exist in the present day, just like with John's baptism.
I know the primary views on modern water baptism are baptismal regeneration vs. testifying to a new life. I think that the testimony of a new life is a life lived in trust and love. I think that regeneration happens when the Holy Spirit indwells us as we come to faith.
In September of 1981, when I had realized the Bible was true, and that Jesus was actually Lord, and that I needed to start obeying Him, the first thing I did was go get water baptized! And I've never regretted it!
It was a "double dunk", my sister and I, one in each of our pastor's hands. Wonderful!
Much love!
