Does Paul Blunder on Baptism?

Consider 1 Corinthians 1:14, which says: “I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius.” Does this verse show that Scripture contains an error? Bruxy Cavey has claimed that it does. He reasons approximately as follows.

Anyone who writes (or asserts) v. 14 commits herself to a fatal conjunction:

(1) Paul didn’t baptize any of the Corinthians [1 Cor 1:14a]


(2) Paul baptized Crispus and Gaius [1 Cor 1:14b].

This is fatal, of course, because if (1) is true, then given that Crispus and Gaius were Corinthian believers, (2) is false. On the other hand, if (2) is true, then it’s (1) that is false. In other words, the conjunction of (1) and (2) is inconsistent. Hence, 1 Cor 1:14 entails a contradiction, and so Scripture is errant.

But notice: what 1 Cor 1:14 actually says is quite different–

(1*) Paul didn’t baptize any of the Corinthians except Crispus and Gaius.

This proposition is true if, of all the Corinthians (to whom Paul was writing), only Crispus and Gaius were baptized by Paul. There isn’t even the hint of contradiction in this claim. We only get a contradiction if we represent Paul’s ‘except’ statement as the conjunction of (1) and (2). But this is plainly a mistake.

Suppose, for example, that I assert (*) All human beings are sinners except Jesus. In asserting (*), I am not thereby committed to the following contradictory pair:

(3) All human beings are sinners.
(4) Jesus (a human being) is not a sinner.

Indeed, if we think about things carefully, we can see that if (*) is true, then the conjunction of (3) and (4) is false. That is, (*) doesn’t entail (3)-(4). This is because if (*) is true, (3) is false. Hence, any conjunction having (3) as a conjunct is also false. Or think of it this way. Since (3) and (4) are contradictory, it isn’t so much as possible that they be true together. Therefore (*), if true, can never entail this pair.

The moral of the story is simple. We must be careful and cautious as we make  our deductions from Scripture, especially when our seeming conclusions deny important, longstanding Christian doctrines. When it comes to biblical deductions: slow, painstaking, logically valid inferences are the order of the day. There are no close substitutes.

•  Visit Dr. Davis’ personal website:

•  Follow Tyndale Philosophy@TyndaleUCPhilos



6 comments on “Does Paul Blunder on Baptism?

  1. […] The Gospel Coalition (TGC) Canada. According to Bruxy, the Gospels err [1], the Apostle Paul errs [2], and the Bible is without authority [3]. We shouldn’t follow it [4]. Further, in an unexpected […]

  2. […] him on that sin. For Paul, however, we confess that the Spirit bore him along in a such as to avoid any mistakes when it comes to God’s communicative […]

  3. […] the past few posts (see here, here, and here), we’ve looked at this idea that the Bible isn’t authoritative; only Jesus is. The […]

  4. […] 2.  Does Paul Blunder on Baptism? [ link ] […]

  5. […] the past few posts (see here, here, and here), we’ve looked at this idea that the Bible isn’t authoritative; only Jesus is. […]

Leave a Reply to Bruxy Cavey’s Radical Obfuscation 2: A Response to “Radical Christians & the Word of God (Part 2 of 3): Inerrancy” – Once For All Delivered Cancel reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s