If baptism is a major thing, why does Paul minimize it? 1 Cor 1:11-17

[DexterMorse2f]

I'm seeking an answer for this from conservative Lutherans who actually stand on something, not from liberals who stand on vague platitudes and fluffy over simplifications of "love" and "unity" and "justice".

If baptism is one of the three sacraments, a means of grace, something God uses to distribute his grace, why does a major Apostle like Paul appear to minimize it, and act like it's not even part of his calling? What is Paul saying in the passage below? The Apostles were commissioned to baptize, yet Paul the Apostle indicates he wasn't.

11 For it has been reported to me by Chloe's people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. 12 What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name. 16 (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.) 17 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.

 

[Dakota Brother]

Let me start by saying I am a lay person, but am responding how I understand it in context with other passages:
Paul preached the gospel and was himself baptized, and baptized others, just indicated his
main focus was the gospel in this particular instance.He had likely already known they were baptizing in the Cornith church. In this letter he is expressing concern regarding church unity in Christ, not in himself or in another apostle, as in baptized in the name of Christ , not in the name of Paul. In preaching the gospel he would have taught the importance of baptizing.

 

[DexterMorse2f]

Let me start by saying I am a lay person, but am responding how I understand it in context with other passages:
Paul preached the gospel and was himself baptized, and baptized others, just indicated his
main focus was the gospel in this particular instance.He had likely already known they were baptizing in the Cornith church. In this letter he is expressing concern regarding church unity in Christ, not in himself or in another apostle, as in baptized in the name of Christ , not in the name of Paul. In preaching the gospel he would have taught the importance of baptizing.

Within a few minutes of typing this thread and hitting submit, a thought came to mind that he was saying his mission to Corinth was to preach the Gospel, not baptize. But still, if baptism is so important, why put distance between gospel preaching and baptizing?

 

[Resha Caner]

Within a few minutes of typing this thread and hitting submit, a thought came to mind that he was saying his mission to Corinth was to preach the Gospel, not baptize. But still, if baptism is so important, why put distance between gospel preaching and baptizing?

He's not. As Dakota Brother said, he's emphasizing that there are not 2 gospels (messages) but 1. There is not a gospel of Apollos and a gospel of Paul (small g), but a Gospel (capital G) of Christ. You don't certify your acceptance of Apollos by being baptized by Apollos, or certify your acceptance of Paul by being baptized by Paul. Baptism makes you a follower of Christ.

There are several layers to this whole issue, and Paul is highlighting one of those layers. It's a matter of rhetoric. Just because he is clearly indicating his sermon topic for this particular passage doesn't mean he places no value on the other layers of the issue. In Acts 22:14 Paul clearly makes baptism an imperative.

There's an important message here. Christianity is not a cult of personality. You shouldn't be a follower of Billy Graham or Joel Olsteen - attracted to the preacher rather than the message.