Vol. 36, No. 9 _ September 2005
by Charles W. Martin

James M. Renihan rightly observes in the forward of a recent book on baptism:

In theological debate, history should never be the final judge; that place is reserved for Scripture. History may, however, make a significant contribution to the discussion, shedding light on the practices of those living closest to the era of the

Bible. In the debate over the subject of baptism, historiography has had a long and fascinating part to play in determining the conclusions of many (James Renihan, in the forward to Baptism in the Early Church, by Hendrick Stander and Johan-nes Louw, Carey Publications, rev. ed., 1994, 7).

Of course, the practice of baptism has been a hotly debated issue for several centuries. In most Christian book-stores, or in the church library, a believer can pick up a book in which one of his church’s scholars uses early church practice as evidence for the correctness of that tradition’s views concerning baptism, regardless of what those views might be.

Thus, the few believers who have dared to read outside of their tradition have come away from their effort somewhat confused and with many unanswered questions. The major reasons for this are, usually, a writer will either glean material from a modern secondary work or quote material from a primary text out of context, so that it appears to support or prove the correctness of his particular view. All too often, when a writer has a point he wants to make or support, the only evidences or "proofs" he calls forth to illustrate his thesis are those which appear to back him up. Those texts and sources that are equally as ancient, but which do not back him up, are simply never mentioned. That this type of thing happens in the scholarly world, much less Christian doctrinal apologetics, may come as a surprise to you. Even so, it happens quite frequently.

Further, when one searches through works on New Testa-ment or systematic theology, what he usually finds is the author staying in line with his own theological tradition as he interprets the Scriptural texts. As we observed last month, pure theological objectivity is difficult. Relatively few church scholars make the effort to objectively seek the truth. Rather, they seek their version of the truth.

For example, several months ago one the research requests we received at Evangelical Ministries concerned Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 1 in reference to disunity and baptism. In 1 Corinthians 1:13-17 Paul talks about the fact Jesus did not send him to baptize and he didn’t recall, beyond the household of Stephanus, if he had baptized anyone else in Corinth. The questioner found the implications of this passage very unsettling in relationship to what he had been taught and was teaching. Why didn’t Paul make it his responsibility to baptize those who were converted under his ministry? If baptism is so crucial in the New Testament church, why did Paul leave it to others to take care of this ordinance? From these questions and the terminology used, we could tell this person had been doing some reading. However, as yet, he had not found the answers he was seeking, or was willing to accept. His dilemma brings up an interesting item in theological and biblical research. When can we say, based on the evidence, "this is definitely what the early church believed and practiced"? The answer is: less often than you probably think.

We read in 1 Corinthians 1:13-17:

13Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? 14I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. 16(Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.) 17For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel - not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power (NIV)

As we begin our study of baptism in the New Testament, we should note this passage in 1 Corinthians is not really a "problem passage" at all. Paul’s emphasis is not primarily on baptism. Actually, Paul is highlighting the folly of divisive-ness in the church. He says it is good that he himself had not baptized many during his first visit to Corinth, for if others had not baptized most of his converts, many more of them would have been claiming they were following Paul. Some years had passed since Paul was in Corinth, thus it is no surprise he didn’t recall baptizing any others beyond those named.

However, it has been suggested this omission may not have been a memory lapse as much as a deliberate gambit to underscore how unimportant it was who baptized whom. It should be clear what Paul is saying here, indirectly, about baptism: the identity of the person carrying out baptism is not important. Thus, he is not down-grading baptism itself, as this would contradict what he teaches in Romans 6:3-7.

But what about Paul’s words in verse 17: "Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel." Should we preach the gospel and, after seeing people converted, leave baptism to be administered by others? In this passage Paul says he did not regard baptism as an ordinance requiring apostolic hands to administer. Nor did he put notches in his belt to keep a head count of those he had personally baptized. He does separate the act of baptizing from the proclamation of the gospel, a fact that implies that in his understanding, baptism does not effect salvation, rather the preaching of the cross does that when it is accompanied by the effectual work of the Holy Spirit. Thus, this passage does not support the idea of baptismal regeneration, that is, that the believer does not truly become a believer until he or she is baptized.