For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. (1 Cor 1:17)
1 Cor 1:17 is a common “proof-text” often used against errant critics of baptismal regeneration. One has refuted this and other like-texts in a number of previous articles, including:
Refuting Douglas Wilson on Water Baptism and Salvation
John Greer vs. the biblical doctrine of baptismal regeneration
Christ's baptism is NOT imputed to the believer
John Greer vs. the biblical doctrine of baptismal regeneration
Christ's baptism is NOT imputed to the believer
John Calvin, one of the magisterial reformers, while holding to a strong formulation of sola fide and forensic justification and atonement, admitted in his commentary on 1 Corinthians to the sacramental nature of water baptism, even in this passage, warning against those who abuse this passage who argue the contrary:
17. For Christ sent me not. He anticipates an objection that might, perhaps, be brought against him— that he had not discharged his duty, inasmuch as Christ commands his Apostles to baptize as well as teach. Accordingly he replies, that this was not the principal department of his office, for the duty of teaching had been principally enjoined upon him as that to which he should apply himself. For when Christ says to the Apostles, (Mt 28:19; Mr 16:15), Go, preach and baptize, he connects baptism with teaching simply as an addition or appendage, so that teaching always holds the first place.
Two things, however, must be noticed here. The first is, that the Apostle does not here absolutely deny that he had a command to baptize, for this is applicable to all the Apostles: Go and baptize; and he would have acted rashly in baptizing even one, had he not been furnished with authority, but simply points out what was the chief thing in his calling. The second thing is, that he does not by any means detract here, as some think, from the dignity or utility of the sacrament. For the question here is, not as to the efficacy of baptism, and Paul does not institute this comparison with the view of detracting in any degree from that; but because it was given to few to teach, while many could baptize; and farther, as many could be taught at the same time, while baptism could only be administered to individuals successively, one by one, Paul, who excelled in the gift of teaching, applied himself to the work that was more especially needful for him, and left to others what they could more conveniently accomplish. Nay farther, if the reader considers minutely all the circumstances of the case, he will see that there is irony tacitly conveyed here, dexterously contrived for making those feel acutely, who, under color of administering a ceremony, endeavor to catch a little glory at the expense of another’s labor. Paul’s labors in building up that Church had been incredible. There had come after him certain effeminate masters, who had drawn over followers to their party by the sprinkling of water; Paul, then, giving up to them the title of honor, declares himself contented with having had the burden.
