Ephesians 4:4-6 reads
There is one body and one Spirit---just as you were called to one hope when you were called---one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
And in Luke 3:16 John the baptizer says,
"I baptize you with water. But one more powerful than I will come, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire."
I think most non-Catholics would agree that water baptism doesn't save a person and that it is the baptism of the Holy Spirit that saves one, which spiritual baptism every believer receives when he or she is born again (having been buried with Him in baptism and raised with Him through your faith in the power of God, who raised Him from the dead. Colossians 2:12) .
What then is the purpose of water baptism? For Jews it was a symbolic ritual representing a desire for a good conscience toward God and repentance from sins. Jesus' disciples and the early Christians practiced the same ritual. Yet we have no instructions in the NT for how to water baptize or any command to perform or partake in the ritual.
Some believe that Christ sent the apostles to baptize people with water as a part of their evangelistic commission. But if there is only one baptism that saves, why would He? The two are obviously not one and the same.
The apostle Paul water baptized a few people, but he said that Christ did not send him to baptize but rather to preach the gospel (1 Corinthians 1:13-17), through which those who hear and believe are baptized by the Spirit.
Why would the man who was arguably the greatest apostle not have been sent by Christ to water baptize if water baptism was an important or necessary part of Christianity, and if Jesus had indeed sent His other apostles to water baptize?
I am one Christian who believes that water baptism is an obsolete Jewish ritual that was carried over into Christianity for a time in the early days of the faith for its symbolic spiritual significance but which God didn't intend for Christians to continue and which is not necessary or important to administer or to partake in.
The "Christ did not send me to baptize..." objection to Christian baptism is perhaps one of the more popular objections out there today.
The objection can be formally phrased thus:
"If Paul had been sent to baptize, then baptism would be part of the gospel message. Paul stated Christ did not send him to baptize, therefore baptism cannot be part of the gospel message."
The objection is in fact a common logical fallacy - called "denying the antecedent." It's construct is this:
"If A is true, the B is true."
"A is false, therefore B is false."
Or,
"If Christ had sent Paul to baptize..."
"then baptism would be part of the gospel message."
"Per I Cor 1:17, Paul was not sent to baptize so..."
What makes this a logical fallacy? Consider the following:
"If Ted is a Texan, then Ted is also an American."
"Ted however is not a Texan, therefore Ted is not an American."
Obviously, such logic is false (e.g Ted could be from Oklahoma, or some other state).
Next, one only need look at the CONTEXT of I Cor 1:10ff to see that Paul was addressing UNITY in the Corinthian church:
"For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe’s
people, that there are quarrels among you. Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am of Paul,” and “I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas,” and “I of Christ.” Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?" (I Cor 1:11ff)
Paul actually appeals to the Corinthian's IDENTITY to deal with their quarrels amongst them - their identity on the basis of their BAPTISM (v. 11).
Finally, Paul readily admits he DID BAPTIZE.
This begs the question, if Christ didn't send him to baptize, but he did baptize, was he being disobedient to Christ in so doing? No, of course not.
The simple answer is that Paul was concerned some of them would (in disunity) identify with him on the basis of his having baptized them. In fact, it's probable that's exactly what had happened.
