Biblical 'inerrancy'

I already posted verse 16 "And I baptized also the household of Stephanas"

Now are you claiming verse 16 isn't in the Greek? Which Greek? I have checked every Greek NT I have (and I have over a dozen of them) and verse 16 is in all of them! He said he baptized the household of Stephanas! Why do you keep saying he didn't?

 

Oh yes, the other verse! That is where, of course, Paul corrected his mis-statement. Without that verse, we wouldn't even KNOW it was a misstatement. Of course, we have to acknowledge it exists!

Now what you mean to say, I believe (and be sure to correct me if I mistate your position) is that when Paul wrote verse 14, he had not yet completed the thought he was expressing, and that taking the complete thought he was expressing is a fair and legitimate thing to do; it is not fair to fault him for an incomplete thought, any more than you walk up to a painter and say his painting seems incomplete while he is still painting it.

In reply to that excuse for Paul's words, I wish to point out how a true modifier works in his sentence: He gives thanks that he baptized none of them, then he modifies that, with "except only Crispus and Gaius", and "except only" is my translation of the greek "ei me" (Please consult your greek text for the actual words.) Then after making the modification of "none of them", he procedes to throw in an entirely new clause: "Lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name". This means, then, he has completed the modification of whom he has and has not baptized, logically. Except he then remembered he had baptized Stephanus, so he throws that in.

Now this is, to you, simply a matter of how to interpret these words. In your mind, inerrancy can be rescued by a generous interpretation that takes in the later phrase.

This is precisely what I meant when I stated that the bible can always be considered innerrant but that it is necessary, at times, to strain to reach that interpretation which rescues inerrancy.

 

Sorry to interrupt your conversation, Paul of Eugene, but are we to infer that you are an expert on grammatical tenses, phrases, and general conversational speaking of the Greek language from 2,000 years ago?

And/or the king's english from the early 1600's?

Not intending to imply anything, just asking for clarification.

 

Not an expert, of course. For this reason, I do not argue from authority, but from reason and from examples and citations. I have no authority in this area, any more than anyone else.

 

You said a mouthful there.

 

Can you show why simply looking at the next verse (verse 16) is unnecessarily "straining the interpretation to save inerrancy?"

 

To TomVols: That's what I tried to do with my post of today at 8:53 pm just a few posts above . . no need to repeat it, looking forward to your comments.

 

My view:

I believe this passage shows one set of the parameters of the inspiration and inerrancy of the Scriptures. The Holy Spirit allows for the frailty of the human writer but carefully and in the context of the thought being expressed covers that frailty "besides, I know not whether I baptized any other". The Spirit of God knowing that Paul indeed had baptized others but had forgotten, superintended Paul's thoughts to include this phrase.
Could He have reminded Paul in this specific case? Yes but He chose to do it this way.

Other parameters would be : the language of appearance, figures of speech, parables, similes, hyperbole, etc.

As someone else alluded to: Every Word is exactly what it should be.

HankD

[ August 10, 2002, 09:20 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

I don't see how it's doing what you claim and you've given no real evidence to support your assertion.

 

Bible inerrancy means without error!

 

I don't know whether to laugh or weep. Perhaps I should do both, laughing at the challenger and weeping for the defender. I came to this board thinking that I had finally found a group of Christians on-line who were willing to study their Bibles. I have not heretofore seen any evidence to validate that thought.

I am sure that most of you have some sort of Bible software which permits you to search for a single word or phrase within the Scriptures. If not, all of you at least have internet access and thus are quite capable of using on-line Bible software. Please utilize the tools which you have access to and search for "Stephanas." When you have completed your search please notice the words, "of you" in I Corinthians 1:13 and consider their significance. Upon completing this very simple study you should be much better equiped to rightly divide this portion of the Word of Truth.

It is only the slothful servant that needeth to be ashamed.

 

Yes, brother Fortenberry, that is an enlightening excercize! One finds out that Stephanous was converted before Paul preached in Corinth. That is why I earlier posted this:

"Now some have pointed out that most probably Paul baptized Stephanus and his household in another area and Stephanus then moved to Corinth, which accounts for Paul's initial oversight in neglecting to mention them. But being aware of the reason for the error does not do away with the fact that it is an error. Is not this passage a blemish for the assumption of inerrancy?"

There is no impuning of Paul or his honesty; his honesty is disarmingly apparant in these verses. We have a full and complete idea of what the true situation was regarding Paul and who he baptized at Corinth. We have no qualms about the intended spiritual lesson, which is to focus on Christ and not individuals such as Paul or anyone else.

I merely state the obvious, that we have a statement here that fails to achieve absolute inerrancy. How can a correction be needed if there was inerrancy all along? Therefore we need to be a little less brash about throwing that word around.

 

Did the Spirit of God make an error?

HankD

 

That is a very likely conclusion, for the house of Stephanas was the firstfruits of Achaia. However, that is not the only conclusion one can come to through a study of the Scriptures. Allow to quote those verses which have a direct bearing on this topic.

First, there is the passage being directly questioned in this thread.

Secondly there are the two verses which I requested that you search for.

Now, in studying the first passage, we find that the household of Stephanas was not included in the "of you." In the second verse we see that the house of Stephanas "addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints." In the third reference we notice that in fulfilling that ministry, Stephanas left Corinth to assist Paul in Philippi.

Therefore we can conclude that at the time of this letter Stephanas was not at the Church of Corinth and thus to include him in the reference to the recipients of the letter would have been an error on Paul's part. However, Paul did not list Stephanas with the recipients of the letter. He, instead, made a definite distinction between those he had baptized who were still at Corinth and those who were no longer at Corinth.

Thus, rather than being a blemish on the doctrine of inerrancy, this passage is actually a very solid example of that doctrine.

 

Hmmm - I see. Because Stephanus visited Paul on a mission for the church at Corinth, carrying with him a gift for Paul as an official act on behalf of the church, and is present with Paul as he writes the letter, it is ok to consider him to not be of them. By asserting this logic, you but illustrate how it is possible to save inerrancy only by straining the interpretation of the passage. I merely relate again that Paul himself felt it was appropriate to make the correction, and therefore I accept his own judgement that the correction was appropriate. I can even suppose Paul was dictating the letter, Stephanos heard him, and said "Hey, Paul, don't forget, you baptized me!" leading to the correction.