You are assuming too much in that statement. Paul freely admitted he baptized some of them there, just that his primary role was to preach. The problem that the Christians were facing there was a problem of taking the name of the one who baptized them, which is what Paul was addressing. He had been given a special gift to preach, but any of the fellow Christians there could baptize.
***You are assuming too much in that statement***
Am I assuming too much or is it possible that you are not seeing something because it conflicts with your theology?
***Paul freely admitted he baptized some of them there, just that his primary role was to preach.***
But further, he claims to have given them birth through the gospel. And he is not concerned that he didn't do (many) baptism. If baptism is REQUIRED how in the world could he even begin to be unconcerned about it. Could you imagine him having such an attitude towards the gospel???
Something like, "I thank God that I preached the gospel to none of you,"???????
***The problem that the Christians were facing there was a problem of taking the name of the one who baptized them, which is what Paul was addressing.***
The problem was factions, not baptismal identification. No one would claim that they believed that "Paul [was] crucified for you?" Nor would they claim to have been baptized ito Paul's name.
***He had been given a special gift to preach, but any of the fellow Christians there could baptize.***
But if new birth was dependant on baptism then he couldn't claim to have given them new birth.