Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other. - 1 Corinthians 1:16 (NASB)
This verse frequently comes up in discussions on infant baptism. I am more interested in how it relates to the inspiration of Scripture. God did not forget if Paul baptized others, and we believe Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write this letter to the Corinthians. How do we explain this? All the commentaries that I sought out for this very reason did not deal with it nor did any of the notes in the study bibles that I possess. It did not come up in Sunday School either. I was surprised by this since it was the first question that I had after reading this verse.
First, let's consider the competing theories of inspiration (this is not exhaustive). At one end of the spectrum is where God dictates everything word for word and the prophet or apostle is nothing more than an amanuensis. J.C. Ryle is an example of someone from this camp. [Edit: I was wrong about Ryle. John R. Rice is a possible example though.] On the other end are the more liberal Protestant scholars who are antisupernaturalistic and consider the writers of the Bible to be similar to Shakespeare or Aristotle in that they had great insight. In between are a wide range of possibilities including God inspiring the writers with the ideas or concepts and the actual words belonging to the authors. Verbal plenary inspiration is probably the most common theory among conservative evangelicals. It holds that God inspired more than concepts or thoughts down to the individual words but that the human writer played a contributing role also. There is a mystery to the interaction between the two, similar to Jesus being fully God and fully man.
Any theory of divine inspiration that is based on word for word or even thought for thought inspiration will be challenged to some extent to explain this verse. This is where a partial inspiration theory excels, but that is a slippery slope for it places each verse under the judgement of individual believers. How do those who hold to verbal plenary handle this? They probably say this is an example of the human nature of the author showing through. Did Jesus ever forget where he laid down his staff for that is certainly part of the human experience.
Comments
Note: fixed incorrect link for 1 Corinthians Preface entry.
Posted by: CJ Costello on Saturday, July 9, 2005
That tract by Bishop Ryle says:
However, he does say that every single word is inspired by God and he implies that inspiration is equal to inerrancy. Paul made an error in verse 15 and he corrects it in verse 16. That would seem to be a contradiction.
I suppose that the major question is what God-breathed (θεοπνευστος) really means.
Posted by: Jeremy Stein on Saturday, July 9, 2005
A mistake on my part. I read somewhere that Ryle believed in verbal inspiration and assumed it was the dictation kind. I linked to the article without reading it. I am learning that people mean many different things when they say "verbal inspiration."
Posted by: CJ Costello on Sunday, July 10, 2005
Is the view of verbal inspiration as dictation a strawman position?
Posted by: CJ Costello on Tuesday, July 12, 2005
Probably. I've heard it used many times as an example of what inspiration is not, but never as an actual position.
Perhaps the mechanism of inspiration cannot be explained. In any case, the results of inspiration are defined for us (e.g. 2 Timothy 3:16-17).
Posted by: Jeremy Stein on Tuesday, July 12, 2005
When Augustine was first learning about the Christain faith, he disdained it because it left some questions unanswered and didn't give acceptable answers to others. The more he learned and studied, the more he appreciated the mysteries of God and understood that we don't need to have all our questions answered in order to believe. The mechanism of inspiration is most likely one of those unanswered questions for us.
Posted by: CJ Costello on Tuesday, July 12, 2005
I found someone who holds to dictation: John R. Rice. He was a fundamental, independent Baptist (the separation kind). As an example, in his book Our God-Breathed Book - The Bible: The Verbally, Inspired, Eternal, Inerrant Word of God he wrote
Posted by: CJ Costello on Tuesday, July 12, 2005
So, does Augustine's conclusion satisfy you?
Posted by: Tara on Monday, May 15, 2006
In the past two years I have gained a deeper appreciation for God's otherworldliness - maybe ineffableness would be a better description. I think that we too easily reduce our faith to a set of propositions. We seek logical certainty in all areas while there is mystery about God. How can we understand the incarnation? Fully divine and fully human - I just can't. I'm sure that Jesus stubbed his toe at some point. What does it mean for God to stub a toe? Now extended that to God's written revelation. How do the human author and inspiration interact? What should the end product look like?
I am quite frustrated with the evangelical church for giving up mystery in order to offer certainty. In many cases, it ends up with shallow answers to questions that demand to be wrestled with or even left unanswered. How scary is that? Unanswered questions.
So to answer your question: I think Augustine was going in the right direction with that answer.
Posted by: CJ Costello on Tuesday, May 16, 2006