In an effort to eliminate baptism from the plan of salvation, those who teach the doctrine of salvation by faith only cite this passage as evidence that baptism is no part of the gospel. They reason: (1) Paul was sent to preach the gospel. (2) But he was not sent to baptize. (3) Baptism is no part of the gospel. Therefore, they conclude that baptism is not a condition of salvation. To reach this conclusion, they must change the verb "baptize" to the noun "baptism." In doing this they either do not understand logic or they willfully attempt to deceive. (Men can "wrest the scriptures to their own destruction" II Pet. 3:15-16). Paul, in I Cor. 1:17, is simply showing that the act of baptizing is not part of the gospel preaching. Others could, and did, take the actual work of baptizing off of Paul. But he was not teaching that "baptism" was not part of the gospel. In Gal. 3:26-27, Paul taught that those "have been baptized into Christ" are "the children of God." Why did he baptize Crispus, Gaius and the household of Stephanas? Were they baptized without divine authority?
Another problem with their argument, that baptism is no part of the gospel, is that it would eliminate the very denomination they belong to. One cannot get into the Baptist Church without baptism. Baptism is therefore, essential to the existence of that church. But baptism, we are told, is no part of the gospel. If baptism is essential to get into the Baptist Church, then the conclusion must be that the Baptist Church is no part of the gospel.
In order to properly understand the passage we must keep it in it's context. In verse 11 we read that there was "contentions" in the church. The brethren were factious, and prone to call each other after the name of the preacher who baptized them. "Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. For Christ sent me not to baptize, bur to preach the gospel..."(vs 12- 17). Note Paul's reasoning. One may properly wear the name of the one in whose name he is baptized. Those who are baptized in Paul's name would be Paulites; in Apollos' name Apollosites; in Cephas' name, Cephasites; in Christ's name (i.e., by Christ's authority, which requires baptism to be administered into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost for the remission of sins), Christians; Those who have not been baptized at all have no right to any name, much less the name "Christian." Those who have not been baptized have no right to wear the Lord's name.
The state of division there was such that Paul was glad he had not baptized many there: "Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name." Paul neither says nor implies that baptism is no part of the gospel. In fact, this passage is a strong and compelling argument showing that baptism is essential and that no accountable person can belong to Christ until he is baptized. The Bible makes clear that it is the case that baptism is absolutely necessary in order for the alien sinner to be forgiven of his past sins (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; I Pet. 3:21). The Lord commanded the apostles: "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them..." (Matt. 28:19).
"If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God" (I Pet. 4:11).
Don H. Noblin
For questions or comments about this article, email Don H. Noblin. If you decide to email me, please include the title of the article. Thank you.