             "PAUL SAID CHRIST DIDN'T SEND HIM TO BAPTIZE,
         THEREFORE BAPTISM MUST NOT BE ESSENTIAL TO SALVATION!"
         
People who take this position use 1 Co 1:11-17 to substantiate
their view:

                  11  For it hath been declared unto
                  me of you, my brethren, by them
                  [which are of the house] of Chloe,
                  that there are contentions among you.
                  12  Now this I say, that every one
                  of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of
                  Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of
                  Christ.
                  13  Is Christ divided? was Paul
                  crucified for you? or were ye
                  baptized in the name of Paul?
                  14  I thank God that I baptized
                  none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
                  15  Lest any should say that I had
                  baptized in mine own name.
                  16  And I baptized also the
                  household of Stephanas: besides, I
                  know not whether I baptized any
                  other.
                  17  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.

Rather than showing Paul didn't think baptism was very important,
this passage demonstrates the essentiality of baptism.  First, notice
the context of these words.  Corinth, a church wracked with nearly
every conceivable problem, also had a problem with its attitude
toward preachers.

In this very passage, Paul mentioned that he learned they were
divided over the preacher who baptized them.  In this context, Paul
said he was glad he hadn't baptized any more of them than he had.
This was not because he didn't think baptism was important, but lest
any man should say that he was baptized into Paul's name.  Indeed,
Paul baptized a few of them while there.  Many were baptized by other
men, as Luke's account of Paul's work in Corinth in Ac 18:8 shows:

                  8  And Crispus, the chief ruler of
                  the synagogue, believed on the Lord
                  with all his house; and many of the
                  Corinthians hearing believed, and
                  were baptized.

So many were baptized, yet because of the specific problem in 
Corinth, Paul was glad that he hadn't personally baptized more of 
them, lest an even greater number would be calling themselves after 
him.

About the structure of Paul's language in 1 Co 1:17, "For Christ 
sent me NOT to baptize BUT to preach the gospel," this is an excel- 
lent example of an ellipsis, a figure of speech where certain words 
not directly expressed are understood.  Other scriptural examples 
illustrate how we are to interpret these words.  For example, in 1
Pe 3:3-4, Peter said,

                  3  Whose adorning let it not be that
                  outward [adorning] of plaiting the
                  hair, and of wearing of gold, or of
                  putting on of apparel;
                  4  But [let it be] the hidden man of
                  the heart, in that which is not
                  corruptible, [even the ornament] of a
                  meek and quiet spirit, which is in
                  the sight of God of great price.

In this passage, which is similar in construction to 1 Co 1:17,
Peter didn't forbid putting on apparel - surely women were to adorn
themselves with clothing, but he placed the emphasis upon women's
inward adorning, the adorning of their spirit!

Similarly, in Jn 6:27, Jesus used this construction when He said,

                  27  Labour not for the meat which
                  perisheth, but for that meat which
                  endureth unto everlasting life, which
                  the Son of man shall give unto you:
                  for him hath God the Father sealed.

Plainly, Jesus didn't prohibit working for physical food (Paul in 2
Th 3:10 said: "If any will not work, neither let him eat.") but He
showed where we should place the emphasis, i.e., spiritual food
should take precedence over physical food.

Likewise, when Paul said Christ sent him not to baptize, but to
preach, he didn't depreciate baptism.  Christ merely showed where
Paul should place the emphasis, i.e., upon preaching the word of 
God.  When the apostles delivered the gospel, it was more important 
that they preach.  At that time, not just anybody could teach the 
word of God, but anybody could baptize!  Thus, the apostles rightly 
emphasized their preaching over baptizing believers themselves.

In addition, Luke in Ac 18:8 said Crispus believed, whereas Paul 
said Crispus was baptized in his account in 1 Co 1:14.  This 
merely shows that "belief" in the Bible included baptism.  Crispus 
was a believer because he placed his confidence in Christ enough to 
obey Him - he believed in Christ enough to be baptized for the 
remission of his sins!  Those who argue about Jesus' teaching on
baptism ought to have the same faith Crispus had!

In this passage Paul also taught two things must happen before one
may call himself after another person.  He said for one to call
himself after Paul, (1) Paul would have to be crucified for the
person, and (2) the person would have to be baptized in the name of
Paul.  That neither of these was true should prohibit the Corinthians
from calling themselves after Paul.

Consider carefully what Paul's argument means positively:  for one
to be called after Christ, two things must happen:  (1) Christ would
have to die for the person, and (2) the person would have to be
baptized in the name of Christ!

Thus, the very passage so many people use to show that baptism is not
essential proves true belief includes baptism (as it did in the case
of Crispus) and for one to be called a "Christian," he must be
baptized in the name of Christ!
This document (last modified September 13, 1997) from the Christian Classics Electronic Library server, at @Wheaton College