Another note to make here is that we do not find Peter, James, John or any other disciple making a similar statement. Water baptism was a mainstay of their gospel. Peter preached "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." (Acts 2:38) Peter mentioned water baptism only once in his letters. He wrote about how Noah and his family were saved through water while they were in the ark during the great flood. Peter wrote: "and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also--not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at God's right hand--with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him." (1 Peter 3:21-22)
We've learned that Crispus was the synagogue leader in Corinth. He and his family believed in Jesus Christ and Paul baptized them. Paul also baptized Gaius in Corinth. A man named Gaius traveled with Paul during his ministry to Ephesus (Acts 19:29 and 20:4). We can't be sure it was the same Gaius Paul baptized in Corinth, but it may have been. Paul mentions a Gaius in Romans 16:23. We don't have enough information to know if it's the same Gaius from Corinth. John the Apostle wrote his third letter to his dear friend Gaius. Again, we can't know for sure it's the same Gaius Paul baptized.
Paul mentioned Stephanas twice in his letter to the Corinthians. The first mention was when he remembered baptizing Stephanas and his household (1 Corinthians 1:16). The second mention was at the end of his letter. "You know that the household of Stephanas were the first converts in Achaia, and they have devoted themselves to the service of the saints. I urge you, brothers, to submit to such as these and to everyone who joins in the work, and labors at it. I was glad when Stephanas, Fortunatus and Achaicus arrived, because they have supplied what was lacking from you. For they refreshed my spirit and yours also. Such men deserve recognition."
(1 Corinthians 16:15-18)
Having this belief about water baptism is not easy. Most Christians believe in some form of water baptism. Some immerse converts in water, others pour or sprinkle water on converts. Some churches practice infant water baptism, however, the only people who are mentioned receiving water baptism in the New Testament were adults. Infants do not have the capacity to understand and respond to the gospel. Grace Believers are one of the only groups of Christians I know who do not practice water baptism.
Vernon Schutz, "Why Did Paul Baptize At All," TRUTH , 1968, XVIII, pp. 199, 200, 208
A Dispensational Theology, Charles F. Baker, 1971, Grace Bible College Publications
THINGS THAT DIFFER: The Fundamentals of Dispensationalism, Cornelius R. Stam, 1951, Berean Bible Society
The Bible and Baptism, Harry Bultema, 1955, Grace Publications
These are just a few of the Bible teachers who believe Paul ended the practice of water baptism with his monumental statement in 1 Corinthians. Study the subject carefully and come to your own conclusion. Know what you believe and why you believe it. That will help you stand firm for Truth throughout your life. If your continued study of the Word leads you to understand a particular truth better or even differently, amend your beliefs and practices to comply with that truth. We grow in knowledge and grace all of our lives. Our ideas, beliefs and practices will grow and change as we grow in Christ and His Word.
This concludes our study about Water Baptism. Please return to the The GraceLife(tm) Menu Page for other studies about the Gospel of the Grace of God.
"Scripture taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan Bible Publishers."
Taking God's Grace to the World!
Paul Stops Baptizing with Water
There is no other documented case where Paul administered water baptism to anyone after Acts 19:3-7. I believe Paul lived up to the message he sent to the Corinthians. He came to understand that Christ had sent him to preach a gospel that would not include water baptism. What do we do with Water Baptism?
Now that we have this information, what do we do with it? I believe we have to follow what Paul taught and not involve ourselves in the practice of water baptism! Water baptism was something God wanted John the Baptist, his disciples and Christ's disciples to practice. It was "for" and "to" the Jews. Much of what Paul did during his early ministry was "for" and "because of" the Jews. Paul was a Jew saved under the Kingdom Dispensation. Paul ministered to Jews first and then the gentiles for many years. He slowly began turning exclusively toward the gentiles and eventually quit baptizing with water. You and I as gentiles are not part of a transition period. That ended nineteen hundred years ago. We have no reason to undergo water baptism. If Christ did not send Paul to baptize, then He certainly has no interest in our practicing baptism. Christ wants us to preach the Gospel of the Grace of God and that does not include water baptism. What Others Teach
"Paul baptized and permitted water baptism among his converts for the same reason that God permitted the Gentiles to exercise the sign gifts of miracles, tongues, and healing. It was 'BECAUSE OF THE JEWS.'" During the transition period the church of God was emerging from its predominately Jewish constituency to a predominately Gentile constituency. During this transition period, which covers the last half of the Gook of Acts, many things were done for the benefit of and out of deference to the Jews. Paul circumcised Timothy "because of the Jews" (Acts 16:1-3). Paul performed a Jewish vow at Jerusalem "because of the Jews" (Acts 21:20-26). The Gentiles were not to eat meat offered to idols, and abstain from blood and things strangled "because of the Jews" (Acts 15:29; 21:25). God gave Gentiles the sign gifts "because of the Jews" (1 Cor. 1:22 and 14:22). Likewise, during the transition period, it was "because of the Jews" that water baptism was permitted among Paul's converts...Baptism of a Gentile in Judaism would be a sign to Israel that he had a change of religious persuasion, for the baptism of a proselyte was the initiation rite of a Gentile into Judaism...Although before John the Baptist it had never been proposed that an Israelite undergo a "baptism of repentance," the Dead Sea Scrolls and other recent finds make it clear that it had long been the general practice for Gentiles to thus signify that they were now converts to Judaism. It would signify to the Jews that the baptized Gentile had obeyed God's call to repentance and that he had placed his faith in Jesus as the Messiah (Acts 20:21). However, after Acts 28, when God no longer dealt with Israel as a distinct nation, there was no longer any need for the "signs." Paul no longer exercised the sign gift of healing (2 Tim. 4:20; 1 Tim. 5:23 cf. this with Acts 19:11, 12; and Phil. 2:25-27). Even as the sign gifts ceased, just so, water baptism ceased as a sign to the Jews of Gentile conversion."
"Another factor which must be taken into consideration is a progress of revelation in the experience of the apostle Paul. Paul did not receive all of his revelation at one time. This is evident from Paul's own statement in Acts 26:16, where he states that at the time of his conversion Christ said unto him: "But rise, and stand upon thy feet; for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou has seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee." And in 2 Corinthians 12:1 he says: "I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord," and in the same context he tells of one of these experiences when he was caught up to the third heaven and heard unspeakable words. No doubt there was some new revelation or advancement of truth given to Paul upon the writing of each of his epistles. It would thus appear that there must have been such progress during and after the period of transition. It is certain that there were at least two baptisms, and most likely three, during the book of Acts history: Christ baptizing with the Holy Spirit, the apostles baptizing with water, and the Holy Spirit baptizing into the Body of Christ. Had there not been progress and change, how could Paul have declared at the end of the transition that there is but ONE baptism? A further word should be said about Paul's statement that Christ had not sent him to baptize. It has been objected that Paul did not mean by this statement that he hadn't been commissioned to baptize, but because of the divisions at Corinth he was glad that he had baptized so few of them. Paul does say in 1 Corinthians 1:14 that he thanked God he had baptized none of them except Crispus and Gaius and the household of Stephanas, but in vs. 17 he is not simply repeating what he said in vs. 14. Here he says, "FOR (Greek gar ) Christ sent me not to baptize but to preach the gospel." The Greek gar , according to Thayer means to adduce the Cause or give the Reason of a preceding statement. The reason or cause for his thanksgiving in this case was not simply that he had baptized so few, but that Christ had not sent him to baptize in the first place; hence he was glad that he had baptized so few. It is remarkable that in this large church at Corinth (Acts 18:8, 10), most of whom were converted through Paul's ministry, that Paul baptized only three or four. He apparently did not lay much stress upon baptism at that point in his ministry. Not one of the Twelve apostles could have honestly said, Christ sent me not to baptize, for that was their specific commission. There was serious trouble in the Corinthian church also over the administration of the Lord's Supper. Paul did not deal with this problem by saying, "Christ sent me not to observe the Lord's Supper." In this case he tells us plainly that he received the truth about the Lord's Supper directly from Christ (1 Corinthians 11:23), but he surely did not receive one word from Christ about water baptism. It will not do to content that all Paul meant by this statement was that preaching the gospel was the more important thing and that he delegated the less important task of baptizing to others. If Paul had delegated the baptizing to others, it would still have been under Paul's authority that the people would have been baptized. This fact is evident from John 4:1 and 2 where 'Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples.)' If it could be said that Jesus was baptizing when His disciples were actually doing the work, it could also be said that Paul was baptizing when he delegated this work to his helpers. In conclusion, there seems to be no inconsistency in Paul's practice of baptism in his early ministry, even though he had not been commissioner to baptize. He practiced a number of other things which were not specifically in his commission. His ministry spanned the period during which God was setting aside those things which specifically belonged to Israel's Kingdom gospel, and ended in the full establishment of the dispensation of the Mystery. Water baptism was just one of the practices which passed with Israel's complete setting aside."
"As with miraculous signs, the departure from this program [water baptism] came with Israel's rejection of her risen Messiah and the raising up of Paul to proclaim the gospel of the grace of God. And, like miraculous signs, this part of the program was not discontinued all at once. Even after the raising up of Paul God still continued for some time to stretch forth His hands to a disobedient and gainsaying people (Rom. 10:21). The departure, however, did not begin until after Saul's conversion. Then Peter was sent to the first Gentile family only to have his sermon interrupted while, to the astonishment of his companions, these Gentiles were saved and received the Holy Spirit apart from water baptism (Acts 10:44-46). True Peter then baptized them (Acts 10:47) to keep the books straight, as it were, but the departure from the program of the "great commission" is clear. The practice of water baptism continued for some time after this, while Christ was still being made manifest to Israel. But in the ministry of Paul, with which the rest of Acts is concerned, water baptism is never required for the remission of sins. Obviously, then, another commission was replacing that given to the eleven before our Lord's ascension. It is significant that while Paul did baptize some, and mentions this in his first letter to the Corinthians, he states that he is glad he has baptized so few of them...It is also significant that Paul, the apostle of the Gentiles and minister of the body of Christ NEVER ONCE, IN ANY OF HIS LETTERS, COMMANDS OR EVEN EXHORTS US TO BE BAPTIZED WITH WATER."
"In Paul's estimate baptism could neither have been a confession of Christ or of sin, for then he would have thanked God that so few had confessed Christ or their sin, and this idea is absurd of course. Neither did he believe that it was a matter of obedience for in that case he would have thanked God that so few had been obedient. And again, is equally certain that he saw no burial or resurrection in baptism, because it is entirely unthinkable that he would have thanked God that none or a few only had been buried and raised with Christ. Nor is it a matter of good conscience for them he would thanked God that this was absent. That Paul does not mean to apply this praise (1 Corinthians 1:14-17) to the peculiar circumstances in Corinth alone, as has been averred, is evident from the fact that his statement is as broad and as general as his preaching. Just as he was sent not only to Corinth to preach, but everywhere, so, by virtue of the absolute contrast he draws, he was sent nowhere to baptize. Everywhere to preach, nowhere to baptize, and this proves by the way, that he was not one of the twelve and did not work under the mandate of the so called Great Commission. The circumstances in Corinth do not in any way circumscribe his argument, for regardless of reason, place, and purpose, all must admit that he did thank God for not baptizing, and he simply could have never done this, if there had been any real benefit in it whatsoever. Could slanderous Corinthians ever be a reason for a man lie Paul to stop doing good? The Lord's Supper was also greatly abused in Corinth, but Paul did not put this aside, but reformed it in detail upon a special revelation from heaven. It is a standing rule in sound theology that the abuse of a truth, never takes away the use of that truth. If water baptism was then deformed, why did he not reform it? Negatively, because he had no revelation from heaven about it, and positively, he knew that it was not God's order for this day of grace, but had to disappear with all the signs and miracles given to Israel. The Church had to live by faith alone and this excludes signs, visions, angel visits, and material rites like baptism."