I don't know if I believe in baptism or not. I know Paul baptized and he never said it would cease. I have an idea on why it is for this age and an idea on why it isn't, but I don't know which one to go with. Any ideas or help?
Here is where I am against water baptism, I am wondering how many ways you can take 1 Cor. 1: "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.". I have been thinking about that statement, "Christ sent me not to baptize". Just taking it as it is says, that might mean Christ never sent Paul to baptize.
I see maybe a possibility that Paul COULD have baptized to appease the Jewish saints at Jerusalem.
 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
I know Peter was sent to baptize, he didn't understand that the kingdom teaching was fading out, and therefore he was "astonished" at this. He said "can any man forbid water". I know that Israel as a nation rejected the gospel of the kingdom and therefore rejected water baptism. (people use that to say Paul couldn't have baptized to please the Jews) The Jews who believed the kingdom gospel WERE pleased with water baptism because it was part of their commission. If Paul were to lead people to Christ and not baptize them, some of the Jewish believers would probably cause a "ruckus". It could be possible Paul did baptize so that the new converts in the Body of Christ might not would be a stumbling block to the Jewish saints. If Paul never was sent to baptize by Christ, that is the logical explanation for him doing it. (similar to the Acts 16 situation with Timothy and circumcision. Peter new the believers in Acts 10 had gotten saved, but he still baptized because he was sent to do it.
It seems like Paul started baptizing after the meeting in Jerusalem [Acts 15], some say that baptizing wasn't in the list of things the Jews wanted Paul to do.
( That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.) That is true, baptism isn't in the list, but neither is circumcision, and Paul still did that to avoid being a stumbling block.
Do you think that is reasonable, are there any problems with what I said that go against scripture, or what do you think about that? (I am still wondering if Acts 19 might work against what I said as a possibility) When you have time I would like any thoughts or scripture I may be overlooking. -Hoss