Historical Christianity - What Is It Anyways?

[coolrok7]

Now I say that the heir, as long as he is a child, does not differ at all from a slave, though he is master of all, but is under guardians and stewards until the time appointed by the father. Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world. But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. (Galatians 4:1-5)

The above is an example of what is referred to as an element of historical Christianity because it succinctly relates to the question of this thread. The term "Christ" is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew "Messiah" or the "annointed one". This has a direct Jewish tie in to the Old Testament of which the New Testament compliments as to the prophetic timeline for the salvation of the people and world we live in.

An example of external Biblical historical writing one can appeal to to establish the text of the New Testament recorded things about Christians in the first century setting that validates it as in the proper historical time frame in which we would appeal to its historicity as to when the events unfolded:

Tacitus (Roman historian) (Relating the history of the infamous nero, emporer 54-58)-

he says that Nero, accused of starting major fires in Rome) substituted as culprits, and punished with the utmost refinements of cruelty, a class of men loathed for their vices, whom the crowd styled Christians. Christus the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, . . .and the pernicious superstition was checked for a moment, only to break out once more, not only in Judea, the home of the disgrace, but in the capital itself, where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and find a vogue. First, then, the confessed members of the sect were arrested; next, on their own disclosures, vast numbers were convicted, not so much on the count of arson as for hatred of the human race. And derision accompanied their end: they were covered with wild beasts’ skins and torn to death by dogs; or they were fastened on crosses, and, when daylight failed, were burned to serve as lamps by night.(Tacitus, The Annals, pp. xv-xliv., trans. John Jackson, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1937)

Pliny the Younger (Governor of Asia Minor) (He wrote his emperor, Trajan (98-117) on how to deal with the Christians)-

They affirmed, however, the whole of their guilt or their error, was, that they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor to deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food—but food of an ordinary and innocent kind. . . .I judged it so much the more necessary to extract the real truth with the assistance of torture, from the female slaves, who were styled deaconesses; but I could discover nothing more than depraved and excessive superstition.(Pliny, Letters, trans. W. Melmoth and rev. W.M.L. Hutchinson, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1947) Book X, xcvi.

Trajan (Roman Emperor) (His response to Pliny the Younger was not to search out Christians but to punish any who had been properly indicted)-

No search shall be made for these people; when they are denounced and found guilty, they must be punished; with the restriction, however, that when the party denies himself to be a Christian, and shall give proof that he is not (that is by adoring our gods) he shall be pardoned on the ground of repentance even though he may have formerly incurred suspicions. Information without the accusor’s name subscribed must not be admitted in evidence against anyone as it is introducing a very dangerous precedent, and by no means agreeable to the spirit of the age. (Pliny, Letters, trans. W. Melmoth and rev. W.M.L. Hutchinson, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1947) Book X, xcvii.

The term "catholic" is a reference to the church universal, not necessarily Roman Catholic as it didn't exist until around the 5-600's. As a Christian, of the Lutheran, Missouri Synod tribe, my faith is Biblically grounded wherein I can demonstrate it as being so.

The following is what Luther had to say concerning his own writings in comparison to Scripture where correct doctrine comes from (as contrasted with Joseph/Brigham Young’s view of Joseph’s "calling"; also The Watchtower’s view and "calling" of Charles Taze Russell):

I would gladly have seen all my books forgotten and destroyed; if only for the reason that I am afraid of the example. For I see what benefit it has brought to the churches, that men have begun to collect many books and great libraries, outside and alongside of the Holy Scriptures; . . .Not only has good time been wasted, and the study of Scripture neglected; but the pure understanding of the divine Word is lost, . . .Then, too, it was our intention and our hope, when we began to put the Bible into German, that there would be less writing, and more studying and reading of the Scriptures. For all other writing should point to the Scriptures, as John pointed to Christ, when he said, “He must increase, but I must decrease.” . . .I only ask in all kindness, that the man who wishes at this time to have my books will by no means let them be a hindrance to his own study of the Scriptures, . . . (Luther’s preface to the first part of his German Works, 1539 edition, pp.7-9)

God made Aaron to be mouthpiece for the children of Israel, and He will make me be god to you in his stead, and the Elders to be mouth for me; and if you don’t like it, you must lump it. (History of the Church, Joseph Smith, Vol. 6:319-20)

Every intelligent person under the heavens that does not, when informed, acknowledge that Joseph Smith Jr. is a Prophet of God, is in darkness, and is opposed to us and to Jesus and his kingdom on the earth. (Journal of Discourses, 8:223, Brigham Young)

God gave Brother Russell to the church to be as a mouthpiece for him; and those who claim to have learned the truth apart from Brother Russell and his writings have been manifested by the Lord as deceivers, ready to lead the flock of God in their way. Since Brother Russell’s death the evidence of God’s favor upon the Society, which was organized by Brother Russell for the furtherance of the Lord’s work, has been manifested as clearly as it was previously upon him. . . . (The Watchtower, Sept. 15, 1922, p.279)

[Zakuska]

Hey coolrok7... Do you agree with Martin Luther?

"Therefore, expressed in the simplest form, the power, the effect, the benefit, the fruit and the purpose of baptism is to save." -- Martin Luther

Edited October 10, 2011 by Zakuska

[coolrok7]

Hey coolrok7... Do you agree with Martin Luther?

"Therefore, expressed in the simplest form, the power, the effect, the benefit, the fruit and the purpose of baptism is to save." -- Martin Luther

Yes, that is the Biblical/LCMS position and I agree as peter says, "baptism now saves you" (But if one doesn't have the opportunity to be baptized before one dies, that will not keep them out of eternal life as there is no Biblical justification for baptizing for the dead which was being practiced by some of the time period but not by the apostles back at Jerusalem with apostolic authority as it was not their teaching (only a reference to it by Paul in his letter to the Corinthians in which the argument was for the validity of resurrection of the dead, not baptizing for the dead which is being read into the text by Joseph Smith) In the name of the Father, Son. Holy Spirit. Matthew 28:18.

Which is the Biblical Christian view way before Mormonism was on the scene (as may other groups have come along as well in the same vein as it was being discussed over the weekend), a theological/heretical "cult" (gathered around someones false interpretation of the Bible) in my perspective.

As I said in another thread, I could vote for Mitt Romney if he wins the party selection but he would not be my first choice, as we need to get "President" Obama (Senator Reid too) out. I believe in the basic premise of the republican candidates as I find the Democratic party ideals in the social fabric/realm of what are not correct Godly views to hold concerning Biblical morality for the most part as in the acceptance of homosexuality (an abomination to God), abortion on demand, etc..

The issue of Romney's Mormonism is in the religious realm more but I still would rather have a "Christian" in the white house as we are a nation whose founding is on the Judeo Christian God, not the Mormon false god.

And by the way Historical Christianity is the Biblical fulfillment of Judaism with Messiah (Jesus Christ) ben David:

Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved: Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope: Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance. Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.

Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Until I make thy foes thy footstool. Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. (Acts 2:22-36)

Jesus' words appropriate to our times:

And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. All these are the beginning of sorrows. Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake. And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another. And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. (Matthew 24:1-14)

[shalamabobbi]

Jesus' words appropriate to our times:

Appropriate indeed..

And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.

False implies true or why make the distinction?

And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

Romans 10:14-15

How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

Show a biblical example of anyone being "sent" by reading extent scripture. Sent implies authority to send. Even Paul after seeing the resurrected Christ had to go to the living authorities to be told what to do..

Catholics understand this. Everyone that broke away from them had to dispense with the concept of necessity.

Sent implies living representatives or new prophets called from heaven, take your pick..

[zerinus]

yea,I guess all the scholars who have commented on this verse are just twisting Paul's words which obviously support LDS doctrine.

I guess that makes sense if you label any person who isn't a Mormon as a "LDS critic".

You are dealing in generalities again. Quote us some specific examples of interpretations of this verse by other scholars, and what their reasoning behind it is, and what their own backgrounds are (and the date when they were written), and we will be in a better position to judge the case.

[zerinus]

You are dealing in generalities again. Quote us some specific examples of interpretations of this verse by other scholars, and what their reasoning behind it is, and what their own backgrounds are (and the date when they were written), and we will be in a better position to judge the case.

Okay, since you are so reluctant to provide specific examples, and prefer to deal in generalities, which doesn't really mean a lot, I did a search for online commentaries using the search term "Bible commentaries online" in Google, and found loads. The one thing that most of them agree upon is that they don't know what the correct interpretation is. They just make guesses about what it could mean. The most honest are upfront and admit that; and there are some that don't. Here is an example of honest commentary that I found:

Word Pictures in the New Testament – 1 Corinthians (PDF)

By A. T. Robertson

Christian Classics

15:29 Else [epei]. Otherwise, if not true. On this use of [epei] with ellipsis see on 5:10; 7:14. Which are baptized for the dead [hoi baptizomenoi huper t n nekr n]. This passage remains a puzzle. Stanley gives thirteen interpretations, no one of which may be correct. Over thirty have been suggested. The Greek expositors took it to be about the dead [huper] in sense of [peri] as often as in 2Co 1:6) since baptism is a burial and a resurrection (Ro 6:2-6). Tertullian tells of some heretics who took it to mean baptized in the place of dead people (unsaved) in order to save them. Some take it to be baptism over the dead. Others take it to mean that Paul and others were in peril of death as shown by baptism (see verse 30). At all [hol s]. See on 5:1.

The difference between them and Joseph Smith was that he wasn't guessing. He was a prophet, so he knew.

[diglot]

You are dealing in generalities again. Quote us some specific examples of interpretations of this verse by other scholars, and what their reasoning behind it is, and what their own backgrounds are (and the date when they were written), and we will be in a better position to judge the case.

Okay, since you are so reluctant to provide specific examples, and prefer to deal in generalities, which doesn't really mean a lot, I did a search for online commentaries using the search term "Bible commentaries online" in Google, and found loads. The one thing that most of them agree upon is that they don't know what the correct interpretation is. They just make guesses about what it could mean. The most honest are upfront and admit that; and there are some that don't. Here is an example of honest commentary that I found:

Word Pictures in the New Testament – 1 Corinthians (PDF)

By A. T. Robertson

Christian Classics

15:29 Else [epei]. Otherwise, if not true. On this use of [epei] with ellipsis see on 5:10; 7:14. Which are baptized for the dead [hoi baptizomenoi huper t n nekr n]. This passage remains a puzzle. Stanley gives thirteen interpretations, no one of which may be correct. Over thirty have been suggested. The Greek expositors took it to be about the dead [huper] in sense of [peri] as often as in 2Co 1:6) since baptism is a burial and a resurrection (Ro 6:2-6). Tertullian tells of some heretics who took it to mean baptized in the place of dead people (unsaved) in order to save them. Some take it to be baptism over the dead. Others take it to mean that Paul and others were in peril of death as shown by baptism (see verse 30). At all [hol s]. See on 5:1.

The difference between them and Joseph Smith was that he wasn't guessing. He was a prophet, so he knew.

Uh, the argument that Joseph Smith was a prophet and so knew the correct interpretation isn't going to fly in the world of scholarship.

And, no, I am not reluctant to provide specific examples. I just haven't had time to do so as I have other priorities to work on right now (such as a textual criticism paper I am working on). I will cobble together some thoughts on this verse, as well as some of arguments put forward by scholars in a day or two and post it in a new thread.

Though, replying with the argument that Joseph Smith was right because he was a prophet will only confirm my belief that you are incapable of interacting with actual argumentation. We will see I guess.

Edited October 11, 2011 by diglot

[wenglund]

Uh, the argument that Joseph Smith was a prophet and so knew the correct interpretation isn't going to fly in the world of scholarship.

That is okay by me. I prefer to lean on the arm of God, rather than the arm of flesh, to determine what God would have us understand is his meaning. You are free to do otherwise.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[diglot]

That is okay by me. I prefer to lean on the arm of God, rather than the arm of flesh, to determine what God would have us understand is his meaning. You are free to do otherwise.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Fair enough. That's your prerogative.

Personally, I tend to think that the God-given gift of reason and logic is more useful in ascertaining the meaning of a passage from antiquity instead of relying on the opinion of a fallible prophet.

[zerinus]

Uh, the argument that Joseph Smith was a prophet and so knew the correct interpretation isn't going to fly in the world of scholarship.

Religion is a matter of faith. Nobody becomes a Christian because he is impressed by somebody’s “scholarship”. You become a Christian because you “believe”. A Prophet is also a scholar. Scholarship and the gift of prophecy are mutually exclusive. But a prophet has an added source of information that a “scholar” alone does not. In this particular case, since all the “scholars” are scratching their heads, and none of them have a definitive answer based on knowledge of the facts, then Joseph Smith’s interpretation is as good as anybody else’s even if you ignore the fact that he is a prophet. But for those of us who know that he is, then his interpretation becomes superior to their guessworks.

Though, replying with the argument that Joseph Smith was right because he was a prophet will only confirm my belief that you are incapable of interacting with actual argumentation. We will see I guess.

It seems to me to have been the other way round. So far in this debate, I have been “interacting with actual argumentation,” while you have been dodging issues, and obfuscating with woolly generalizations.

Fair enough. That's your prerogative.

Personally, I tend to think that the God-given gift of reason and logic is more useful in ascertaining the meaning of a passage from antiquity instead of relying on the opinion of a fallible prophet.

If your “scholars” agreed on the correct interpretation you might have a point; but since they have come up with over thirty different interpretations, none of which by their own admission is conclusive, that comment is a bit rich. If you believed that your “gift of reason and logic” is “God given,” you would have at least as much respect for the opinion of a prophet as you would for that of the scholars.

Edited October 11, 2011 by zerinus

[diglot]

Religion is a matter of faith. Nobody becomes a Christian because he is impressed by somebody’s “scholarship”. You become a Christian because you “believe”. A Prophet is also a scholar. Scholarship and the gift of prophecy are mutually exclusive. But a prophet has an added source of information that a “scholar” alone does not. In this particular case, since all the “scholars” are scratching their heads, and none of them have a definitive answer based on knowledge of the facts, then Joseph Smith’s interpretation is as good as anybody else’s even if you ignore the fact that he is a prophet. But for those of us who know that he is, then his interpretation becomes superior to their guessworks.

Well how can I argue with that! Joseph Smith was a prophet who was apparently given an infallible interpretation of this verse.

It seems to me to have been the other way round. So far in this debate, I have been “interacting with actual argumentation,” while you have been dodging issues, and obfuscating with woolly generalizations.

No you have quoted one scholar who does not agree with the LDS interpretation. This may come as a surprise to you but saying this verse refers to vicarious baptism does not equate to saying Mormons are right in interpreting this verse as supporting their belief. Most commentators do think this verse refers to vicarious baptism, yet I have found none who think it does so in a manner consistent with LDS belief. And I haven't found one yet that thinks Paul endorsed the practice (which obviously runs contrary to his baptismal theology).

You would know this, of course, if you cared about really trying to find out what this verse is about. But when one desperately wants to find evidence supporting a prophet, one is willing to throw objective analysis from scholars to the wind.

Oh, but I remember, anyone who isn't a Mormon is an LDS critic and so their arguments are useless.

Why don't you do a little bit of research on this verse and find out why scholars do not think this verse supports LDS doctrine and then engage their arguments. I know you wont, but hopefully I will find time today or tomorrow to summarize it. I'm sure other people on this forum will be willing to engage their arguments instead of dismissing them as "LDS critics".

Edited October 11, 2011 by diglot

[volgadon]

Scholarship and the gift of prophecy are mutually exclusive.

Hardly.

[volgadon]

As I recently wrote in a blogpost.

J. Trumbower, "Rescue for the Dead: The Posthumous Salvation of Non-Christians in Early Christianity," pp. 55-57.

"I agree with Rissi and Hans Conzelmann (and, for that matter, with Mormon prophet Joseph Smith), that the grammar and logic of the passage point to a practice of vicarious baptism of a living person for the benefit of a dead person."

Trumbower's endorsement, however, is far from unqualified. For him, the main difference is one of scale, the ancient texts painting a more limited picture of those eligible for such baptism.

[Cobalt-70]

Or in the end, would Martin Luther cast Evangelical Christianity as a Cult along with Mormonism?

Just what IS "Historical" about any of today's Christian faiths?

The irony is that Evangelicalism probably has more in common with Mormonism than it does with the "traditional Christianity" that has been practiced in Europe for centuries.

[zerinus]

Well how can I argue with that! Joseph Smith was a prophet who was apparently given an infallible interpretation of this verse.

That is a very cheap dodge.

Why don't you do a little bit of research on this verse and find out why scholars do not think this verse supports LDS doctrine and then engage their arguments. I know you wont, but hopefully I will find time today or tomorrow to summarize it. I'm sure other people on this forum will be willing to engage their arguments instead of dismissing them as "LDS critics".

Because they are just guessing, which is not the same thing as scholarship. You apparently can’t tell the difference between scholarship and guesswork. No scholar has a significant piece of information on this verse to go by beyond what is provided by the context of the verse itself; and I think that I can do as good a job of reading the verse in its context as anybody else can. I don’t know about you; but I reckon I have enough brains to read the verse in its context, and determine for myself what it means; which is what I have already done in the following posts:

He does. He links it to a true doctrine, the doctrine of the resurrection. He cites that practice as evidence for belief in the resurrection. Why would Paul want to cite a false practice as evidence for faith in the resurrection? It makes no sense otherwise.

Of course it is. He is citing the practice as evidence for belief in the resurrection. He is saying, “If the resurrection is not true, why are people baptized for the dead?” That is another way of saying, “If they did not have a hope of the resurrection, they wouldn’t want to practise baptisms for the dead.” You would have to twist the obvious meaning of the words to come to any other conclusion than that baptisms for the dead was practised in the days of Paul, and he approved of the practise.

That again is a very twisted way of treading those verses. “Why stand we in jeopardy every hour?” is simply another evidence he gives for his belief in the resurrection. He cites two instances in his own life, and the life of the other saints and Apostles as evidence of their faith in the resurrection: one is their practise of the baptism for the dead; the other is their willingness to jeopardise their lives for the sake of the gospel. He is saying that if we did not have a hope of the resurrection, we would not want to risk our lives for the gospel’s sake, nor would we practise baptisms for the dead.

[diglot]

That is a very cheap dodge.

Dodging an argument based on dogmatism is fine.

Because they are just guessing, which is not the same thing as scholarship. You apparently can’t tell the difference between scholarship and guesswork.

lol @ scholars are "just guessing".

Scholars take data and interpret it. There is a lot more data here than just the one verse and the chapter. There is historical data (e.g. what do we know of religion in Corinth during the first century). How does this verse make sense in light of the Pauline corpus, (e.g. Paul's baptismal theology displayed throughout his writings has to be brought under consideration). And so on and so forth.

You don't seem to understand that saying this verse refers to vicarious baptism in no way equates to supporting the LDS doctrine of baptizing for the dead. Yes, most scholars believe this verse refers to vicarious baptism (as do I). But so far I have not found one who goes on to agree that LDS doctrine is a legitimate way of interpreting this verse (but I am still looking, so maybe it will happen!).

You can label all scholars as "LDS critics" and say they are "just guessing" if you want to. That's your prerogative. But know that your view is based on dogmatism and not an objective inquiry into the text.

Edited October 11, 2011 by diglot

[diglot]

Here are two scholars who have written entire dissertations on this verse. Neither of them agree that the Mormon view of vicarious baptism can be supported by this verse.

• Bernard Foschini, "Those who are baptized for the dead" 1 Cor 15:29: And exegetical historical dissertation. Appears as five articles in Catholic Biblical Quarterly 12 (1950): 260-76, 379-88 and 13 (1951): 46-78, 172-98, 276-83.
  
• Michael Hull, Baptism on Account of the Dead (1 Cor 15:29): An Act of Faith in the Resurrection. (Brill, 2005).
  

Can you provide a scholar who has published an article in a known peer-reviewed journal which asserts that 1 Cor 15:29 supports the Mormon view of vicarious baptism? And remember, while most scholars would agree that the verse refers to vicarious baptism, this does not at all equate to saying that it supports the Mormon doctrine of vicarious baptism.

How would you reconcile Paul's baptismal theology as seen in his other writings with the view that he is endorsing salvifically efficacious vicarious baptism in this verse?

Can you provide a parallel of the Mormon view for comparison from any other early Christian literature? If not, why is there no trace of this practice anywhere else? Does a lack of reference to vicarious baptism in early Christianity influence your understanding of this verse at all?

Why do you argue against the scholarly consensus that the Mormon view of vicarious baptism can not be supported in this verse? Do you have any reasoning apart from your dogmatic, "Because Joseph Smith said so"?

Where in early Christian literature do you find the concept that actions performed by the living are able to be attributed to the dead as their own works?

Foschini nicely summarized the problem of interacting with dogmatic Mormons on this verse:

To answer the Mormons is difficult, not because of the strength of their arguments, but because they are not on common ground with us. We must depend on research and reason ; they depend on the light of their "revelations."

Bernard Foschini, "Those who are baptized for the dead" 1 Cor 15:29: And exegetical historical dissertation, Part III",Catholic Biblical Quarterly 13 (1951): 70

Edited October 12, 2011 by Ares

[Ares]

I removed the personal remarks. Avoid them.

[zerinus]

Sorry for the delay in replying. I missed your post, and thought you had broken off the discussion.

Here are two scholars who have written entire dissertations on this verse. Neither of them agree that the Mormon view of vicarious baptism can be supported by this verse.

• Bernard Foschini, "Those who are baptized for the dead" 1 Cor 15:29: And exegetical historical dissertation. Appears as five articles in Catholic Biblical Quarterly 12 (1950): 260-76, 379-88 and 13 (1951): 46-78, 172-98, 276-83.
  
• Michael Hull, Baptism on Account of the Dead (1 Cor 15:29): An Act of Faith in the Resurrection. (Brill, 2005).
  

Can you provide a scholar who has published an article in a known peer-reviewed journal which asserts that 1 Cor 15:29 supports the Mormon view of vicarious baptism?

First of all that is asking the wrong question. Those who argue against the Mormon interpretation of this verse argue from silence. They say there is no corroborative evidence of vicarious baptisms for the dead practised in the NT—with the exception of this verse—therefore this verse cannot be referring to vicarious baptisms for the dead. Now anyone with a modicum of intelligence knows that that is not a valid argument. Therefore the question that you need to ask is, “Are there any scholars who have been able to positively disprove the Mormon interpretation of this verse?” Unless they can do that, the Mormon interpretation cannot be ruled out.

Secondly, the answer to your questions actually yes. The majority view is that it refers to vicarious baptisms for the dead. I was not able to find a readable version of Bernard Foschini’s treatise online; but Michael Hull’s book is viewable in Google Books, though it is not complete. It is copyrighted, so it doesn’t give you all the pages. It jumps from the contents page to pages 11 and 12, and then jumps from page 12 to page 36. But that was enough to extract useful information from it. On page 12 it lists the “vicarious baptism” interpretation as the majority opinion of contemporary scholars, and under that heading it provides the following information:

The Majority Reading

Readings of vicarious baptisms are based on the plain sense of the verse’s words: <Greek text> Arguments in support of a reading for vicarious baptism in 15:29 are legion. Reginald St. John Perry argues that vicarious baptism cannot be refuted, for to do so would refute “the plain and necessary sense of the words” (Perry, First Corinthians, 228). Soren Agersnap claims that “it cannot be denied that Paul is here speaking of vicarious baptism: one is baptized for the dead to ensure for them a share in the effect of baptism, and this must relate to a post-mortal life” (Agersnap, Baptism and the New Life, 175). And Albert Oepke even goes so far as to suggest that any and all interpretations of 15:29 which circumvents the reading of vicarious baptism are misleading (A. Oepke, “<Greek Text>,” TDNT 1:542 n. 63. Beasley-Murray [Baptism in the New Testament, 187] is just one of the many who follow Oepke in this assertion). These opinions are representative of the tenacity of the majority reading in contemporary biblical scholarship. . . . For the most part, those who hold for a reading of vicarious baptism presume that it was practiced either on behalf of deceased family members and friends or deceased “catechumens.” These specifications are not mutually exclusive among exegetes: opinions range from those who hold that deceased relatives and friends, who had no intention of being baptized, were baptized vicariously by their living relatives and friends, to those who hold that vicarious baptism was reserved to catechumens alone. Now, we turn to Arthur Carr, Herbert Preisker, James Moffatt, Mathis Rissi, C.K. Barrett, H. V. Martin, and a few others for specific examples of the Majority Reading. (P. 12).

At this point the text breaks off, and jumps to page 36. But as you can see, the majority opinion is that it refers to a vicarious baptism of some kind, some of which are in fact identical to the Mormon interpretation.

And remember, while most scholars would agree that the verse refers to vicarious baptism, this does not at all equate to saying that it supports the Mormon doctrine of vicarious baptism.

Now that doesn’t make sense. Vicarious baptism is vicarious baptism. How can it be referring to vicarious baptism, without supporting the Mormon doctrine of vicarious baptisms? If they agree that it is referring to vicarious baptisms, then it is supporting the Mormon doctrine, either weakly or strongly depending on how it is interpreted. Some of the scholars that Michael Hull quotes very strongly support the Mormon doctrine of vicarious baptisms.

How would you reconcile Paul's baptismal theology as seen in his other writings with the view that he is endorsing salvifically efficacious vicarious baptism in this verse?

In order to answer that question, you first need to show me that there is a contradiction. I don’t know of any contradiction between Paul’s teaching of vicarious baptisms in 1 Cor 15:29, and the rest of his teachings on baptism. If you can show me that there is a contradiction, then I can show you how I would reconcile them.

Can you provide a parallel of the Mormon view for comparison from any other early Christian literature? If not, why is there no trace of this practice anywhere else? Does a lack of reference to vicarious baptism in early Christianity influence your understanding of this verse at all?

That is arguing from silence. The amount of information we have about what was happening in the first century of Christianity is very small. Just because something is mentioned only once, it doesn’t mean that therefore it couldn’t have occurred, or that the principle is teaches is not valid. Remember, you are trying to establish that the Mormon interpretation of this scripture is not true. We have our own reasons for believing that it is true, which goes beyond 1 Cor 15:29. You may not agree with our reasons that it is true; but that is not sufficient to establish that it is not true. To prove that it is not true, you need to do more than just disbelieve in our reasons for believing that it is true. You have to prove that it is not true. And you cannot do that by arguing from silence, or by citing the opinions of scholars who merely share your views, but have no further proof to back up their opinions than you do.

Why do you argue against the scholarly consensus that the Mormon view of vicarious baptism cannot be supported in this verse?

First of all there is not a “scholarly consensus,” see above. The majority opinion is that it refers to vicarious baptisms. As long as they accept that it refers to vicarious baptisms of some description, it is supporting the Mormon position. Secondly, you don’t accept a “scholarly opinion” just because it is called “scholarly”. You examine it, and accept it if the scholarship is good, and the arguments support the conclusion.

Do you have any reasoning apart from your dogmatic, "Because Joseph Smith said so"?

Do you have any reasoning that disproves what Joseph Smith has said? Disagreeing with Joseph Smith just because you don’t like the look on his face is not my way of agreeing or disagreeing with anybody.

Where in early Christian literature do you find the concept that actions performed by the living are able to be attributed to the dead as their own works?

Arguing from silence again. Not valid.

Foschini nicely summarized the problem of interacting with dogmatic Mormons on this verse:

To answer the Mormons is difficult, not because of the strength of their arguments, but because they are not on common ground with us. We must depend on research and reason ; they depend on the light of their "revelations."

Bernard Foschini, "Those who are baptized for the dead" 1 Cor 15:29: And exegetical historical dissertation, Part III",Catholic Biblical Quarterly 13 (1951): 70

By this quote you just proved what I said before. If this guy is a genuine scholar, and does not have an agenda, why does he need to engage in polemics against Mormonism? That automatically makes his motives (and scholarship) suspect.

Edited October 13, 2011 by zerinus

[diglot]

First of all that is asking the wrong question. Those who argue against the Mormon interpretation of this verse argue from silence. They say there is no corroborative evidence of vicarious baptisms for the dead practised in the NT—with the exception of this verse—therefore this verse cannot be referring to vicarious baptisms for the dead.

You need to read more carefully. I said that no scholar I have found supports the idea that this verse supports the Mormon doctrine of various baptism. As I’ve stated many times, most do think this verse refers to vicarious baptism, but I have not found any who think it is the sort of vicarious baptism as explicated by the LDS church.

Secondly, the answer to your questions actually yes. The majority view is that it refers to vicarious baptisms for the dead.

You need to read more carefully. I never argued otherwise. I was asking whether they support the Mormon view of vicarious baptism. As I have told you in the past, it is erroneous to say that scholars who support the vicarious baptismal view also think it supports the Mormon doctrine of vicarious baptism.

Vicarious baptism does not equal the LDS doctrine of vicarious baptism.

At this point the text breaks off, and jumps to page 36. But as you can see, the majority opinion is that it refers to a vicarious baptism of some kind, some of which are in fact identical to the Mormon interpretation.

Ah, yes I missed that. Hull does mention some who think it was practiced for non-believing dead relatives. Yet, I hardly think that is “identical to the Mormon interpretation” (which also says it is required for entrance into the Celestial kingdom).

Now that doesn’t make sense. Vicarious baptism is vicarious baptism. How can it be referring to vicarious baptism, without supporting the Mormon doctrine of vicarious baptisms?

Because saying this verse refers to vicarious baptism does not necessarily mean things that the LDS church assumes are true, e.g., it was done for dead non-believers and it is necessary for them to enter the Celestial kingdom.

Some of the scholars that Michael Hull quotes very strongly support the Mormon doctrine of vicarious baptisms.

Can you give me some names? In the part you quote from his book, I did not notice any specific names for those who believe this verse refers to the baptism of dead non-believers. I would be interested in reading their thoughts on this verse and why they come to that conclusion.

That is arguing from silence.

And it is an argument from silence that is deafening. You do realize that there is a reason as to why scholars of early Christianity do think vicarious baptism was an anomalous practice. That reason is not because they are LDS critics. It is precisely because there is no other data which supports the notion that vicarious baptism was a commonplace practice. Arguments from silence are used regularly in historical inquiry, but only when that silence is deafening.

Secondly, you don’t accept a “scholarly opinion” just because it is called “scholarly”. You examine it, and accept it if the scholarship is good, and the arguments support the conclusion.

And that is why I have been examining the scholarship that has amassed on this verse. That is why I have been reading through multiple commentaries, dissertations, and journal articles.

Do you have any reasoning that disproves what Joseph Smith has said? Disagreeing with Joseph Smith just because you don’t like the look on his face is not my way of agreeing or disagreeing with anybody.

I disagree with Joseph Smith and his interpretation of this verse because there is no reason to accept it. Accepting his opinion on this verse makes as much sense as accepting what my hairdresser says about it.

If Joseph Smith showed that he had an informed understanding of the Greco-Roman culture, first-century Corinth, etc., in his interpretation of this verse, then yes, I would take his interpretation into account. But I am not going to give his opinion any credence just because he claimed to be a prophet of God.

Edited October 13, 2011 by diglot

[zerinus]

You need to read more carefully. I said that no scholar I have found supports the idea that this verse supports the Mormon doctrine of various baptism. As I’ve stated many times, most do think this verse refers to vicarious baptism, but I have not found any who think it is the sort of vicarious baptism as explicated by the LDS church.

You need to read more carefully. I never argued otherwise. I was asking whether they support the Mormon view of vicarious baptism. As I have told you in the past, it is erroneous to say that scholars who support the vicarious baptismal view also think it supports the Mormon doctrine of vicarious baptism.

Vicarious baptism does not equal the LDS doctrine of vicarious baptism.

Ah, yes I missed that. Hull does mention some who think it was practiced for non-believing dead relatives. Yet, I hardly think that is “identical to the Mormon interpretation” (which also says it is required for entrance into the Celestial kingdom).

Because saying this verse refers to vicarious baptism does not necessarily mean things that the LDS church assumes are true, e.g., it was done for dead non-believers and it is necessary for them to enter the Celestial kingdom.

Can you give me some names? In the part you quote from his book, I did not notice any specific names for those who believe this verse refers to the baptism of dead non-believers. I would be interested in reading their thoughts on this verse and why they come to that conclusion.

And it is an argument from silence that is deafening. You do realize that there is a reason as to why scholars of early Christianity do think vicarious baptism was an anomalous practice. That reason is not because they are LDS critics. It is precisely because there is no other data which supports the notion that vicarious baptism was a commonplace practice. Arguments from silence are used regularly in historical inquiry, but only when that silence is deafening.

And that is why I have been examining the scholarship that has amassed on this verse. That is why I have been reading through multiple commentaries, dissertations, and journal articles.

I disagree with Joseph Smith and his interpretation of this verse because there is no reason to accept it. Accepting his opinion on this verse makes as much sense as accepting what my hairdresser says about it.

If Joseph Smith showed that he had an informed understanding of the Greco-Roman culture, first-century Corinth, etc., in his interpretation of this verse, then yes, I would take his interpretation into account. But I am not going to give his opinion any credence just because he claimed to be a prophet of God.

Thank you for replying. So you believe that 1 Cor 15:29 does refer to baptism for the dead, but not to the Mormon baptism for the dead. Can you be a bit more precise in explaining how Paul't baptism for the dead is different from the Mormon baptism for the dead?

[altersteve]

All 1 Corinthians 15:29 is asking is, if "they" don't believe in the resurrection, then why do "they" perform baptism for the dead? Because if there is no resurrection, then baptism is worthless anyway. The LDS doctrine of vicarious baptism may not be explicitly supported by this verse, but it is consistent with it. It's really that simple.

Edited October 14, 2011 by altersteve

[Vance]

Thank you for replying. So you believe that 1 Cor 15:29 does refer to baptism for the dead, but not to the Mormon baptism for the dead. Can you be a bit more precise in explaining how Paul't baptism for the dead is different from the Mormon baptism for the dead?

It sounds like the classic (anti-Mormon) approach. They don't know what it really means, BUT . . . . Mormons are WRONG!!

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!

[diglot]

I don' think that Mormons can use this verse to support their view of baptism for the dead because it assumes far too much. It assumes it was performed for non-believers, and that it was required for the dead to attain the Celestial kingdom.

The practice of baptism for the dead was not commonplace in earliest Christianity (the apostolic period). Outside of a certain group of people in Corinth there is zero evidence for this practice as far as I am aware. That does not fit the hypothesis that vicarious baptism was part of the apostolic message.

Why would Paul dissociate himself and the larger Corinththian Christian community from those who performed vicarious baptism? One reason would be that it runs counter to baptismal theology.

This was an aberrant (and anomalous) practice in early Christianity. To use this verse as supporting the current LDS doctrine is clutching at straws.

[diglot]

Vance, spare us of this "anti-mormon" rhetoric. Just because somepne doesn't agree with your church, doesn't mean they are some big mean anti-mormon.