Some proponents of a “symbolic” view
of baptism point to 1 Cor 1:17 as evidence in favour of their position:
For Christ sent me not to baptise, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
Perhaps it would be enough to note
that, in the context of 1 Corinthians, the community there were split, with
many attempting to set themselves above others due to the individual who
baptised them, as well as other issues, which produced great fractures within
the church there (cf. 1 Cor 1:12; this is perhaps why John 4:2 states that Jesus
did not baptise; perhaps to preclude individuals pointing to their being
baptised by Jesus as “proof” that they were superior to others within the
faith).
Furthermore, the Apostles generally had different callings than to perform baptisms (see Acts 8:5-25). The function of officers within the organisation of Christ’s Church has nothing to do with the necessity of baptism. Paul, in fact, did perform baptisms (e.g., Acts 19:1-6), and Jesus commanded His Apostles to baptise all nations (Matt 28:19), and His disciples baptised more new converts than John (John 4:1). Further, baptism and the gospel are not being contrasted with one another. What is being contrasted in this phrase is baptising and preaching, two separate ministries within the gospel. Paul’s assignment required him to do the latter and leave the former for other Church officers. In fact, when the grammar is correctly analysed, the clear implication is that baptism was part of the gospel Paul was sent to preach
Tertullian wrote an entire book in
favour of baptism being salvific, On Baptism. In chapter 14 he responds
to similar charges:
Chapter
XIV.—Of Paul’s
Assertion, that He Had Not Been Sent to Baptize.
But they roll back an objection
from that apostle himself, in that he said, “For
Christ sent me not to baptize;” (1 Cor 1:17) as if
by this argument baptism were done away! For if
so, why did he baptize Gaius, and Crispus, and the house of Stephanas?(1
Cor 1;14, 16) However, even if Christ had not sent him to baptize, yet
He had given other apostles the precept to baptize. But these words were
written to the Corinthians in regard of the circumstances of that particular
time; seeing that schisms and dissensions were agitated among them, while one
attributes everything to Paul, another to Apollos.(1 Cor 1:11, 12; 3:3,
4) For which reason the “peace-making”(Matt 5:9) apostle, for fear he should seem to claim all
gifts for himself, says that he had been sent “not
to baptize, but to preach.” For preaching is the
prior thing, baptizing the posterior.
Therefore the preaching came first: but I think baptizing withal was lawful
to him to whom preaching was.
