"For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power." - 1 Cor 1:17

What does this mean in light of people who think you must be baptized in order to be saved? in order to have heard the gospel?

i'm going to go ask matthew... since he's getting the PhD and all.

This is an easy one for me.

I don't believe that baptism is required for salvation. Its a crucial sacrament to be sure, one that identifies the person with the death, burial and resurrection of Christ.

Classic response: What about the Thief on the Cross? "Today you will be with me in Paradise."
Baptism of Desire, the RCC calls it, I think.

hello... just checking out if I can post a reply successfully... if so I'll post a proper reply here a little later

Hmm it's an interesting question: Paul often seems to emphasise baptism - using it in Romans 6 and elsewhere as the image of becoming a Christian. But certainly the picture in Corinth is of a group of people who pride themselves in baptism as though it was the outward ritual that was important rather than what it represents: union with the death and resurrection of Christ.

This is evidenced in three places that I can think of in 1 Corinthians:
1) 1:10-17 - where Paul distances himself from proud claims about baptism
2) 10:1-5 - where Paul points that Israel had also gone through baptism, and yet many subsequently fell due to pride
3) 15:29 - where Paul indicates (I think) that the Corinthians' proud pursuit of baptism is absolutely worthless if there is no future resurrection of the dead.

So I think this does build up to a case that baptism should never be thought of as sufficient in itself: It must be seen as useful only if it expresses genuine union with the death and resurrection of Christ. I wouldn't want to say that baptism is unimportant - but I agree with others here that in the end, Christian salvation is not mechanically dependent on the reception of baptism.

It's interesting that as I go through Acts of the Apostles for Sunday School the chief thing there is the witness of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit comes upon some before baptism, some after baptism, and some with baptism. But whenever any argument about a group's membership in the Christian community takes place, the chief argument is always "They received the Holy Spirit as we did; how can we deny them, then?"

Baptism is important, but Acts rates at least one thing more highly.

okay... I appreciate the answer matt... but then what do we do about

1 Corinthians 15:29
 29Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?


?!? I often hear the reformed types say that we must accept predestination because its in the bible, but we dont accept baptism for the dead and its in the bible...

what do you do with this verse in your studies?

Yeah this is a pretty controversial passage. My view on this passage is a bit eccentric, but hopefully easy enough to communicate - here goes... first, the background:

1) The context of the letter
- Remember from ch1 (& ch10): The Corinthians are boasting about which apostle baptised them
- Remember from chs1-4: For Paul, the apostolic life is basically a life of death - because it imitates the cross
- The rest of 1 Corinthians can be read as Paul's charge to the cruciphobic Corinthians to "imitate him" as he imitates the cross

2) The context of the chapter
- The Corinthians are effectively denying the need for future resurrection

3) The function of the section (vv29-32)
- Paul is drawing attention to the fact that both Paul and the Corinthians themselves ACT as though there will be a resurrection of the dead

And now for my understanding of the verse:
"If there is no future resurrection of the dead, why do you Corinthians boast about being baptised in the name of metaphorically dead apostles?"
This reading of the verse may be supported by the fact that he goes on in v31: "I die every day"

In other words, there is no wacko practice of baptising people on behalf of actual corpses in view here: Paul is simply drawing attention to the ironic fact that the Corinthians are proudly boasting about baptism "on behalf of" Paul or Apollos, when those very apostles are the living dead. So if there is no future resurrection of the dead, the Corinthians' own actions are meaningless.

Like I say, it's a bit of an eccentric view, but I like it!

wow...
thats the best interpretation i've heard yet...
you need to blog that entry... its too good to be cooped up in this forum! i appreciate that sort of thing a lot. thanks for the insight because now I can actually be educated when someone asks me about it instead of just saying, "well, its not a norm we understand or have historically practiced"

Here is what I wrote on TC's blog:
--------
the way I understand it is that the people who Paul was talking to “baptized for the dead”. But they also didn’t believe the dead could be raised. So he was pointing out their contradiction.
--------

Jeff

For one thing: Baptism is not the Gospel, which is what really matters.

Second, the Corinthians were promoting party spirit behind the person who baptized whom.

Third, Paul is saying that they need to refocus on what really matters--the gospel (1 Cor 2:1-5).