Mormonism and the Trinity

[Markk]

Can't we all at least agree that "Offenders For A Word" is probably one of the greatest, maybe the greatest apologetic work ever written. From the hallowed halls of higher learning to the great churches and cathedrals throughout all the lands ... no one person, no institution, and no hospital's emergency room admitting nurse - No One - has ever succeeded, nay even attempted, to challenge or otherwise overturn the theological precepts set forth in this tome that will live through the ages, likely surpassing such heretofore "credible" works like Pilgrim's Progress, The Cost of Dicipleship, and Imitation of Christ. Hear ye, hear ye, all who doubt my words. Google the title yourself and observe how the unflagging tenents, rock-solid theological underpinnings, and universal applications of this grand work are cited and referenced in any and all serious apologetic works dealing with the formidable topics of Christianity. It is essential, foundational, and unchallengable. It is seminal.

Besides, 10 people at amazon.com give it 5 stars.

Hi Gervin,

The only word that comes to mind is..."citsissicran"

MG

[Daniel Peterson]

The world ignores your book and you call it vindication. Ride on, emperor

Your characteristic sneering has misled you, this time.

I don't require a vast audience for the book. But I know that it's sold several thousand copies and gone through several printings, and I know that more than a few vocal, dedicated critics have read it. Yet there has never been so much as a serious attempt at a rebuttal.

I've been told that it's stupid, that I'm a terrible writer, and etc. (And, of course, you've sneered.) But I've seen no serious effort to rebut the book's thesis, and I would be interested in seeing one.

It's gone full circle, LDS and yourself believe the term Christian is a generic term that can describe even a practicing pediphile,

I simply follow standard dictionary usage and normal linguistic practice, which I've justified in Offenders for a Word on the basis of a fairly extensive survey of both Christian writing and modern scholarship.

I based my opinion on scripture which disagrees with that.

And, once again, I ask that you direct me to a biblical passage defining the term Christian.

I won't ask, yet, for a passage defining Christian as a synonym for saved, or for a passage saying that Christians cannot be guilty of serious sins. For now, I ask only for a passage defining the term Christian.

Also in the mix, that we have not discussed is the LDS teaching that they are the only TRUE church. And that the LDS church is organized and comes out and claims that all other "Christian" churches are apostate and that they teach a doctrine that is a abomination to God and if they ( the professors)believe it they are corrupt. In other words LDS believe they are the only true Christian Church and all the other Christian Churches are just false Christian Churches. Is this a fair analysis of LDS ideology?

That's reasonably accurate.

When we see where you think you're going with it, we'll be able to determine whether it's accurate enough.

[Markk]

Hi Dan,

When we see where you think you're going with it, we'll be able to determine whether it's accurate enough.

Who is "we" Dan? Who are you speaking for here, just curious?

I gave you a very clear understanding of where I am going "with it". "It" is that your book fails to discuss the very roots of the matter and the divisions between our two respective faiths, and it clearly does not discuss the LDS churches roll in causing these divisions. Offenders of the Faith is a book that is a one sided review that ignores a root issue. It would be a kin to a book written about the reasons the American Civil War occurred, and only discussing the "aggression of the North", and completely ignoring any responsibilities of the South.

Dan, this issue is a "little" deeper than dictionary term use, if you insist on that line of reasoning, your going down a road of complete denial.

I will address more of your questions and discuss more of what I have read in your book later, hopefully after a Lakers victory!

Take care

Mark

John 1:12

[zerinus]

I will address more of your questions and discuss more of what I have read in your book later, hopefully after a Lakers victory!

So my questions remain â??unaddressedâ?! I guess I should have figured.

[Daniel Peterson]

I gave you a very clear understanding of where I am going "with it". "It" is that your book fails to discuss the very roots of the matter and the divisions between our two respective faiths, and it clearly does not discuss the LDS churches roll in causing these divisions.

What "divisions" are you talking about? Offenders for a Word is, as the title implies, a historical/semantic study of the meaning of certain words [e.g., Christian and, to a lesser degree, cult]. It's not about sociology, or interfaith relations. It's not even about whether fundamentalist Protestants like Mormons.

Offenders of the Faith [sic] is a book that is a one sided review that ignores a root issue. It would be a kin to a book written about the reasons the American Civil War occurred, and only discussing the "aggression of the North", and completely ignoring any responsibilities of the South.

You don't even seem to know what the book is about, Markkkk.

Have you finished chapter one yet?

Dan, this issue is a "little" deeper than dictionary term use, if you insist on that line of reasoning, your going down a road of complete denial.

The subject of Offenders for a Word is whether there is room for Mormonism within the historical semantic range of the term Christian. The conclusion of the book is that, emphatically, yes there is.

It's a simple topic, and a clear one. It's no more fair to fault Offenders for a Word for failing to address the hurt feelings and status anxieties of Southern Baptists than it is to complain that Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire has so little to say about the health benefits of soy protein.

I will address more of your questions and discuss more of what I have read in your book later

Please try to do something substantive. Otherwise, there's little point to the exercise.

[cksalmon]

But I've seen no serious effort to rebut the book's thesis, and I would be interested in seeing one.

I've seen at least one "serious effort." (Something online, if I recall; "serious," but not "effective," IMO.) I, too, would like to see an effective effort made--or, at least, one that doesn't hamstring itself with methodological lacunae. That hasn't happened, that I've seen.

Of course, the semantic issue is precisely the point. That was the point of my pining for a "language game" analysis of OFAW on the other board. I've already conceded your overall point (as I've stated here, in the past). But, I don't think that that's the entire story.

As you'd be the first to admit, linguistic usage is inevitably context driven.

Again, IIRC, the problem with that online analysis of OFAW (do you have any idea what I'm talking about? I'll try to dig it up) is that it evinced no real understanding of (nor did it once consciously analyze) its own presuppositional situatednesss.

Mormonism deserves a rigorous presuppositional analysis. At this point, we have only Mike Robinson's absolutely horrific (in multiple senses: at least in terms of content and, I hate to sound elitist, physical presentation--just a bad book) Presuppositional Apologetics Examines Mormonism: How Van Til's Apologetic Refutes Mormon Theology.

A full-length, printed response that combines a rigorously-presuppositional apologetic with a post-Wittgensteinian analysis would be very much appreciated, at least, by this reader (whose own copy of OFAW is in danger of becoming unreadable secondary to explosions of annotations).

cks

[Daniel Peterson]

I'm not sure that I know which one you have in mind, but would genuinely like to see it. (I probably already have.)

James White wrote a response that I thought pretty weak and tangential, and I think that Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson may have offered something up, as well. Those are the most serious attempts at rebuttals that I can recall.

I would also be interested in a presuppositional response to Mormonism, done well (by presuppositionalist standards). I've read a few theoretical studies, by evangelicals, of different modes of apologetics, and I confess that presuppositionalism has always left me . . . well, completely cold. I keep thinking that I need to give it another look, though. Maybe a really serious read of Bahnsen and/or Van Til.

[Cold Steel]

I will address more of your questions and discuss more of what I have read in your book later.

Don't you think you owe him at least one or two rebuttals, just off the top of your head? You are, after all, committing yourself to a vocal position on many points that Peterson has well documented and eloquently stated. Certainly one is entitled to one's opinions, but you should at least address some of those issues, the ones you feel are the most weak and inarticulately stated. Stating an opinion and then ducking for cover saying you'll get to it later is unfair to him and the time he's put into it.

In the end, though, who gets to define the terms? You criticize Offenders For a Word because "it clearly does not discuss the LDS churches (sic) roll (sic) in causing these divisions." Speaking of divisions, can you not see the divisions that exist in the rest of Christendom? Who gets to decide what divisions are significant enough to define what is "Christian" and what aren't?

Look, we won't deny our heritage. We openly claim to be the only "true and living church on the face of the whole earth." In saying this, we deny the legitimacy of other, manmade, sects. But our claims are well stated and we don't play word games. We've never robbed, or attempted to rob, any sect of either salvation or its own claims. Do you not know that some evangelicals don't consider Catholics to be Christian? Do you not know that some sects believe that Catholicism is the Antichrist? And once you've robbed the Catholics of the title, who do you move on next? How about that church where the abortion doctor was gunned down? Are they Christian? And how about the Jehovah's Witnesses?

So come on, be honest. We can't be the only ones, can we? Just between you and me, what other sects out there aren't Christian? If you say we're the only ones, then you'll be shown to be a bit of a hypocrite, as there are many other sects that are at least as radical as we. But if you start naming others, where does it end?

That's the real crux here.

[Daniel Peterson]

I asked Markkkk, not long ago, whether he regards Catholicism as a Christian faith. He may have answered my question, but, if he did, I missed his answer.

So I pose the question again: Markkkk, is Catholicism a Christian faith?

[cksalmon]

I'm not sure that I know which one you have in mind, but would genuinely like to see it. (I probably already have.)

James White wrote a response that I thought pretty weak and tangential, and I think that Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson may have offered something up, as well. Those are the most serious attempts at rebuttals that I can recall.

I would also be interested in a presuppositional response to Mormonism, done well (by presuppositionalist standards). I've read a few theoretical studies, by evangelicals, of different modes of apologetics, and I confess that presuppositionalism has always left me . . . well, completely cold. I keep thinking that I need to give it another look, though. Maybe a really serious read of Bahnsen and/or Van Til.

I don't believe it was White (or, McKeever/Johnson) that I'm thinking of. Nor, on the other hand, do I recall the effort made (of which I speak) to have been particularly presuppositional in nature. Of course, White, at least in recent years, would fit that bill most closely. But, White hasn't been focused on Mormonism for quite a few years now. Despite the occasional press he receives here, White's time has been taken up more recently (at least the last few years) with Islam and atheism (not Catholicism and Mormonism, as in yesteryear).

At any rate, what I appreciate about a presuppositional approach (though, indeed, I can appreciate your impression) is that all the presuppositionalist's cards are laid on the table at the outset (hence the label); methodology is inherently and self-consciously in play. There can be no attempts at any sort of methodological subterfuge. Methodology is primary and drives the discussion forward at every step.

Bahnsen is definitely the go-to guy. Van Til's native language was certainly not English; and he can certainly be read as quite grammatically obtuse when read in low-German English translation. It's like reading, well, German, sometimes. Not his fault, of course.

The beauty of Van Til's apologetic is that it is quite properly understood as self-conscious Protestant apologia. Mainly through Bahnsen, his ideas have reached a wider audience--though, to my knowledge, Bahnsen was never particularly interested in Mormonism--but his expansion of Van Tilian thought just might be quite applicable to the peculiarly American Christian religious expression known as Mormonism.

Sadly, to myself at least, Bahnsen died a too early death. I do so enjoy his presentations, captured via bona fide video "camcorders."

cks

[Daniel Peterson]

Sadly, to myself at least, Bahnsen died a too early death.

I remember being struck by that. Sad.

[Markk]

Hi Dan,

I'm not sure why you wrote the book, or to whom you wrote the book for, but if it is a book that is intended to persuade mainstream Christianity to accept LDS theology as Christian, then your going to strike out. If the book is written for your followers, Petersonites, ( couldn't help it, I just read your similar jabs at Decker in your book), or the LDS people then I would guess you hit a home run. At any rate, I'm curious, who did you have in mind when you wrote the book, and what did you desire to get from it?

If the Book was intended to support a view that the word Christian is just a generic term, then OK, I can kind of see where you are heading, if it was a book written trying to actually explain why Christians do not accept LDS theology then the book is lacking for reasons you did not address.

As a Christian, if someone was to die in an accident and it was discussed with another Christian, one of the first question that would be asked is "were they a Christian, or were they saved? They would never say " were they baptists, or were they Catholic." By saying are you a Christian one is saying are the saved.

Now as a Mormon it would go along the lines of "were they a member", or "were they LDS", or even "were they active". This as you know reassures the LDS member that the person will be OK. I don't really expect nor do I want you to answer this, I just hope you can understand how the word Christian is used and what it means to today's Christian Church. You can go back through history and pick and choose quotes that support your view, but it does not change this reality one bit. Your book is nonsense in that it doesn't address the real issues of the division, and these issues have been hashed over billions of time on both sides of the coin, just on this site alone.

I understand you don't want to get into the reality of the LDS church and it's history of teaching that the Christian church is lost and broken without any authority, to do so causes several problems, one being it elevates the LDS church from the role of victim, to the role of aggressor, and it it not prepared to do that.

The LDS church in all reality wants to be Orthadox Christian on the outside in appearance, and sing Kum by ya, and then behind closed doors relish that they alone are the only true Christian Church, and only through it can a person ever have a hope of being in the presence of Heavenly Father. If your going to have credibility beyond the choir, then your going to have to deal with this, if not you can just add more K's to my name and keep believing what you believe.

What is the difference between a real Christian and a False Christian in your opinion.

Take care

Mark

John 1:12

[zerinus]

Hi Dan,

I'm not sure why you wrote the book, or to whom you wrote the book for, but if it is a book that is intended to persuade mainstream Christianity to accept LDS theology as Christian, then your going to strike out. If the book is written for your followers, Petersonites, ( couldn't help it, I just read your similar jabs at Decker in your book), or the LDS people then I would guess you hit a home run. At any rate, I'm curious, who did you have in mind when you wrote the book, and what did you desire to get from it?

If the Book was intended to support a view that the word Christian is just a generic term, then OK, I can kind of see where you are heading, if it was a book written trying to actually explain why Christians do not accept LDS theology then the book is lacking for reasons you did not address.

As a Christian, if someone was to die in an accident and it was discussed with another Christian, one of the first question that would be asked is "were they a Christian, or were they saved? They would never say " were they baptists, or were they Catholic." By saying are you a Christian one is saying are the saved.

Now as a Mormon it would go along the lines of "were they a member", or "were they LDS", or even "were they active". This as you know reassures the LDS member that the person will be OK. I don't really expect nor do I want you to answer this, I just hope you can understand how the word Christian is used and what it means to today's Christian Church. You can go back through history and pick and choose quotes that support your view, but it does not change this reality one bit. Your book is nonsense in that it doesn't address the real issues of the division, and these issues have been hashed over billions of time on both sides of the coin, just on this site alone.

I understand you don't want to get into the reality of the LDS church and it's history of teaching that the Christian church is lost and broken without any authority, to do so causes several problems, one being it elevates the LDS church from the role of victim, to the role of aggressor, and it it not prepared to do that.

The LDS church in all reality wants to be Orthadox Christian on the outside in appearance, and sing Kum by ya, and then behind closed doors relish that they alone are the only true Christian Church, and only through it can a person ever have a hope of being in the presence of Heavenly Father. If your going to have credibility beyond the choir, then your going to have to deal with this, if not you can just add more K's to my name and keep believing what you believe.

What is the difference between a real Christian and a False Christian in your opinion.

Take care

Mark

John 1:12

Before debating who is a Christian and who is not, don't you think it would be a good idea to agree on an accurate, biblical, theilogical definition of the word "Christian" so that we have some common ground to work on? If you don't like the difinition that I had given, can you give us your definition of a Christian, and tell us why you think it is superior to the one that I had given?

[Markk]

Before debating who is a Christian and who is not, don't you think it would be a good idea to agree on an accurate, biblical, theilogical definition of the word "Christian" so that we have some common ground to work on? If you don't like the difinition that I had given, can you give us your definition of a Christian, and tell us why you think it is superior to the one that I had given?

Hi Z,

Who is us? One of Dans points is that there is not a biblical definition and that history's usage of the word defines it's meaning, but then again he has given me a personal definition, so we are all over the board here. I have given you my definition of what I believe a Christian is way back on this thread, and basically it is one whos name is written in the Lambs Book of Life, one that God has saved. But i can go with Dans personal def. if you add the word "true" in front of Jesus.

I still don't understand your def. Make it short a sweet for me.

Thanks

MG

[Gervin]

Your characteristic sneering has misled you, this time.

I don't require a vast audience for the book. But I know that it's sold several thousand copies and gone through several printings, and I know that more than a few vocal, dedicated critics have read it. Yet there has never been so much as a serious attempt at a rebuttal.

I've been told that it's stupid, that I'm a terrible writer, and etc. (And, of course, you've sneered.) But I've seen no serious effort to rebut the book's thesis, and I would be interested in seeing one.

It appears that all of the topics in your book (as identified by chapter headings) are part of the ongoing topics of discussion on this and other message boards, in books, and at conferences. The fact that no one has taken the time to do a point-by-point rebuttal of your claims shouldn't be mistaken for cowardice, dumbfoundedness, or intellectual quivering.

But I'll give you a chance to prove that your book is unassailable: In the chapter on Baptism for the Dead and Secrecy you say,

The argument that baptizing for the dead is unchristian presumes that the problem of 1 Corinthians 15:29 has already been solved, and that it has been solved in a way that contradicts the faith and practice of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. However, this is far from the case. Try as they might, commentators have been unable to talk their way out of the clear meaning of the text, which is that living Corinthians were allowing themselves to be baptized on behalf of those who had died. "None of the attempts to escape the theory of a vicarious baptism in primitive Christianity seems to be wholly successful," observes Harald Riesenfeld.367 Thus, reluctant though they might be, the majority of scholars has now come around to a position very much like that of the Latter-day Saints.

Describe the LDS position and show that "the majority of scholars ha[ve] come around to a positionn very much like that of the Latter Day Saints."

[Daniel Peterson]

I'm not sure why you wrote the book, or to whom you wrote the book for, but if it is a book that is intended to persuade mainstream Christianity to accept LDS theology as Christian, then your going to strike out.

Do you have any actual evidence to justify your prophecy?

On the few occasions where I've been able to make the case directly to people previously indisposed toward considering Mormonism Christian, where I knew that they were listening, it's been pretty successful.

One example of this would be the Rev. Jeffrey Silliman, then of Mount Olympus Presbyterian Church in Salt Lake City.

http://www.slts.edu/Press/Silliman_President.htm

I expect that his response to me at a Sunstone symposium of years ago, in which he announced that I had convinced him (even though he still considered Mormonism heretical), is still available in a recording from the Sunstone Foundation.

If the Book was intended to support a view that the word Christian is just a generic term, then OK, I can kind of see where you are heading, if it was a book written trying to actually explain why [mainstream] Christians [often] do not accept LDS theology then the book is lacking for reasons you did not address.

As it expressly says, and as I've said several times here, Offenders for a Word was written to consider whether any of the arguments commonly adduced to justify the claim that Mormons are not Christians has any merit in light of the relevant historical data. It concluded that none of them holds water.

The book was certainly not written to address all of the reasons given by various types of other Christians (mostly, though not solely, evangelical or fundamentalist Protestants) for hating, rejecting, and/or fearing Mormonism.

As a Christian, if someone was to die in an accident and it was discussed with another Christian, one of the first question that would be asked is "were they a Christian, or were they saved? They would never say " were they baptists, or were they Catholic." By saying are you a Christian one is saying are the saved.

That is a usage typical of a certain strand of recent Protestantism. It is absolutely not the way in which the word has commonly been used among the Catholics, the Orthodox, and the other elements of historic Christendom.

And I point out, yet again, that there is no passage in the Bible in which Christian is defined as a synonym for saved.

Do you, incidentally, consider Catholics Christians, or Catholicism a Christian faith?

I just hope you can understand how the word Christian is used and what it means to today's Christian Church.

By which, it seems, you mean fundamentalist or evangelical Protestantism.

You remind me of Parson Thwackum, in Henry Fielding's classic novel Tom Jones: "When I mention religion," he says, "I mean the Christian religion; and not only the Christian religion, but the Protestant religion; and not only the Protestant religion, but the Church of England."

You can go back through history and pick and choose quotes that support your view

Can you find any passages from the Bible, the church fathers, the Reformers, or modern mainstream scholarship that refute my view?

but it does not change this reality one bit.

I take it that you're not intending to marshal any actual evidence for your position.

Your book is nonsense in that it doesn't address the real issues of the division

You don't appear to have grasped the purpose and point of Offenders for a Word.

It also doesn't address apiculture, modern Iranian politics, the chemistry of the covalent bond, Freudianism, Federal Reserve policy, or tenses in the Chinese verb.

What is the difference between a real Christian and a False Christian in your opinion.

All Christians are "false Christians" to some degree or another. God is the judge. We're saved through his grace.

The fact that no one has taken the time to do a point-by-point rebuttal of your claims shouldn't be mistaken for cowardice, dumbfoundedness, or intellectual quivering.

I've said nothing about cowardice, dumbfoundedness, or intellectual quivering.

But I'll give you a chance to prove that your book is unassailable: In the chapter on Baptism for the Dead and Secrecy you say,

The argument that baptizing for the dead is unchristian presumes that the problem of 1 Corinthians 15:29 has already been solved, and that it has been solved in a way that contradicts the faith and practice of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. However, this is far from the case. Try as they might, commentators have been unable to talk their way out of the clear meaning of the text, which is that living Corinthians were allowing themselves to be baptized on behalf of those who had died. "None of the attempts to escape the theory of a vicarious baptism in primitive Christianity seems to be wholly successful," observes Harald Riesenfeld.367 Thus, reluctant though they might be, the majority of scholars has now come around to a position very much like that of the Latter-day Saints.

Describe the LDS position and show that "the majority of scholars ha[ve] come around to a positionn very much like that of the Latter Day Saints."

The LDS position on this verse is that Christian believers at Corinth were receiving baptism vicariously on behalf of those who had died without receiving it.

Here is what the late Krister Stendahl (Lutheran bishop of Stockholm, dean of Harvard Divinity School, and one of the foremost New Testament scholars of the twentieth century) had to say on the subject: "Once the theological pressures from later possible developments of practice and doctrine are felt less constricting, the text seems to speak plainly enough about a practice within the Church of vicarious baptisms for the dead. This is the view of most contemporary critical exegetes." (Krister Stendahl, "Baptism for the Dead: Ancient Sources," in Daniel H. Ludlow, ed., Encyclopedia of Mormonism [New York: Macmillan, 1992), 1:97.)

And here, as a bonus, is Professor Stendahl actually speaking about baptism for the dead:

Thanks, incidentally, for foregoing the sneers this time. Much more pleasant.

[zerinus]

Hi Z,

Who is us?

In the context of the post you are replying to, take it to mean me and you.

One of Dans points is that there is not a biblical definition and that history's usage of the word defines it's meaning, but then again he has given me a personal definition, so we are all over the board here.

I havenâ??t read his book or article, so I cannot judge. I am conducting a discussion between me and you. I donâ??t know why you keep dragging Dan into it. Canâ??t you and I have a sensible discussion without bringing Dan into the equation all the time?

I have given you my definition of what I believe a Christian is way back on this thread, and basically it is one whos name is written in the Lambs Book of Life, one that God has saved.

Okay, I have two questions for you: 1) What makes you think your definition is superior to mine? Why should I use your definition in preference to mine? 2) How do you use your definition to determine if somebody is a Christian or not? How do you know if someone's name is written in the â??book of lifeâ? or not? Do you have a copy of that book at home so we can look it up?

But i can go with Dans personal def. if you add the word "true" in front of Jesus.

Not interested in Danâ??s def., sorry. Only interested in my own def!

I still don't understand your def. Make it short a sweet for me.

Hmmm, amazing! A Christian is a disciple of Jesus Christ who brings forth the fruits thereof.

[Gervin]

The LDS position on this verse is that Christian believers at Corinth were receiving baptism vicariously on behalf of those who had died without receiving it.

Here is what the late Krister Stendahl (Lutheran bishop of Stockholm, dean of Harvard Divinity School, and one of the foremost New Testament scholars of the twentieth century) had to say on the subject: "Once the theological pressures from later possible developments of practice and doctrine are felt less constricting, the text seems to speak plainly enough about a practice within the Church of vicarious baptisms for the dead. This is the view of most contemporary critical exegetes." (Krister Stendahl, "Baptism for the Dead: Ancient Sources," in Daniel H. Ludlow, ed., Encyclopedia of Mormonism [New York: Macmillan, 1992), 1:97.)

And here, as a bonus, is Professor Stendahl actually speaking about baptism for the dead:

Thanks, incidentally, for foregoing the sneers this time. Much more pleasant.

So the LDS "position" isn't that baptism for the dead was an accepted rite of the early Christian church, it's simply that these particular people were engaged in it? I'm still curious about the reference to "most" scholars. How is that statement supported? Do the majority of scholars accept this as an accepted practice of the early church? If not, what's the point?

[Daniel Peterson]

So the LDS "position" isn't that baptism for the dead was an accepted rite of the early Christian church, it's simply that these particular people were engaged in it?

No. Obviously, as a faith position, we believe that others may have engaged in the practice. But we believe that 1 Corinthians 15:29 is definite evidence that the practice was performed in Corinth.

Our practice of vicarious baptism for the dead comes, as we believe, from revelation in the nineteenth century, not from New Testament exegesis.

I'm still curious about the reference to "most" scholars. How is that statement supported? Do the majority of scholars accept this as an accepted practice of the early church? If not, what's the point?

I'm incapable of quoting Professor Stendahl's "most contemporary critical exegetes" any more clearly than I already have.

[Gervin]

No. Obviously, as a faith position, we believe that others may have engaged in the practice. But we believe that 1 Corinthians 15:29 is definite evidence that the practice was performed in Corinth.

There's little doubt it - or something like it may have been performed in Corinth, but there's no evidence it was widespread, taught by the apostles or that the majority of scholars believe it was a tenet of the early church. Is that correct?

Our practice of vicarious baptism for the dead comes, as we believe, from revelation in the nineteenth century, not from New Testament exegesis.

So, the Christian rejection of modern baptism for the dead can be honestly based on a reading of the New Testament. I agree.

The paragraph in your book that deals with this topic goes on to claim that because Catholics pray for the dead and their Christianity is (generally) not in doubt, then the LDS baptism for the dead should be given the same deference. Correct?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

So, the Christian rejection of modern baptism for the dead can be honestly based on a reading of the New Testament. I agree.

Whoa, that is about as bad a reading of some ones words as I have ever seen. Good job. That is exactly what Dan was saying.

[Daniel Peterson]

There's little doubt it - or something like it may have been performed in Corinth

That has been doubted very much -- B. M. Foschini reported and evaluated forty very distinct attempts to explain 1 Corinthians 15:29 (B. M. Foschini, "Those Who Are Baptized for the Dead: 1 Cor. 15:29," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 12 (1950): 260-276, 378-388; 13 (1951): 46-78, 172-198, 276-285 -- but, as Professor Stendahl observes, most contemporary critical New Testament scholars have now come around to agreeing that the verse refers to a vicarious practice of baptism on behalf of the unbaptized dead.

but there's no evidence it was widespread, taught by the apostles or that the majority of scholars believe it was a tenet of the early church. Is that correct?

1 Corinthians 15:29 is addressed, specifically, to Corinthians. It has nothing to say about the practices of the early Christian branches in Alexandria, Thessalonica, Ephesus, etc.

And it was written by Paul, not by Peter or Matthew or James or John.

But it seems pretty clear that at least one early branch of the Church was performing vicarious baptisms for the dead, and that at least one early Christian apostle (Paul) had, at the worst, no problem with the practice.

So, the Christian rejection of modern baptism for the dead can be honestly based on a reading of the New Testament. I agree.

I think it would be hard -- and Paul would apparently agree with me -- to construct a biblical case against vicarious baptism for the dead.

The paragraph in your book that deals with this topic goes on to claim that because Catholics pray for the dead and their Christianity is (generally) not in doubt, then the LDS baptism for the dead should be given the same deference. Correct?

That's correct.

Actions on behalf of the dead don't disqualify believers from being termed Christians, unless one is willing -- as, in fact, Markk may well be -- to deny that Catholics are Christians.

And, more specifically, unless one wishes to say that the members of the early Christian congregation at Corinth were actually non-Christians -- and even, perhaps, to extend that to the apostle Paul himself -- it seems difficult to see how one can consistently say that the practice (or the approval of the practice) of vicarious baptism for the dead renders one a non-Christian.

[Gervin]

That has been doubted very much -- B. M. Foschini reported and evaluated forty very distinct attempts to explain 1 Corinthians 15:29 (B. M. Foschini, "Those Who Are Baptized for the Dead: 1 Cor. 15:29," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 12 (1950): 260-276, 378-388; 13 (1951): 46-78, 172-198, 276-285 -- but, as Professor Stendahl observes, most contemporary critical New Testament scholars have now come around to agreeing that the verse refers to a vicarious practice of baptism on behalf of the unbaptized dead.

1 Corinthians 15:29 is addressed, specifically, to Corinthians. It has nothing to say about the practices of the early Christian branches in Alexandria, Thessalonica, Ephesus, etc.

And it was written by Paul, not by Peter or Matthew or James or John.

But it seems pretty clear that at least one early branch of the Church was performing vicarious baptisms for the dead, and that at least one early Christian apostle (Paul) had, at the worst, no problem with the practice.

I think it would be hard -- and Paul would apparently agree with me -- to construct a biblical case against vicarious baptism for the dead.

That's correct.

Actions on behalf of the dead don't disqualify believers from being termed Christians, unless one is willing -- as, in fact, Markk may well be -- to deny that Catholics are Christians.

And, more specifically, unless one wishes to say that the members of the early Christian congregation at Corinth were actually non-Christians -- and even, perhaps, to extend that to the apostle Paul himself -- it seems difficult to see how one can consistently say that the practice (or the approval of the practice) of vicarious baptism for the dead renders one a non-Christian.

I'm not a Catholic but I found their library has some interesting things that refute your notion that Paul would be in agreement with you or in agreement with the LDS practice of baptism for the dead:

The doctrine of baptism for the dead was first given to the Mormon church by Joseph Smith in 1836 and is found in his Doctrine and Covenants, (but not, as weâ??ll see, in the Book of Mormon).

In Paulâ??s first epistle to the church in Corinth, he treats a number of subjects. This letter was written to counteract problems he saw developing in Corinth after he had established the church there. Corinth had its share of pagan religions, but there were also quasi-Christian groups that practiced variations of orthodox Christian doctrines. Enter baptism for the dead.

Mormons cite a single biblical passage to support baptizing members on behalf of dead persons, "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? Why are they then baptized for the dead?" (1 Cor. 15:29).

Mormons infer that in 1 Corinthians, Paul speaks approvingly of living Christians receiving baptism on behalf of dead non-Christians; however, the context and construction of the verse indicate otherwise. The Greek phrase rendered by the King James Version as "for the dead" is huper ton nekron. This phrase is as ambiguous in Greek as it is in English. The preposition huper has a wide semantic range and can indicate "for the sake of," "on behalf of," "over," "beyond," or "more than." Like the English preposition "for," it does not have a single meaning and does not require the Mormon idea of being baptized in place of the dead. Such a reading would be unlikely given the more plausible interpretations available, and even if huper were taken to mean "in the place of," it doesnâ??t mean Paul endorses the practice.

First Corinthians 15 is a key chapter for Paulâ??s teaching on the resurrection of the body. He makes no statement on baptism for dead persons except to note that some unnamed "they" practice it. While the rest of his teaching in chapter fifteen refers to "we," his Christian followers, "they" are not further identified. Who this group was may not be known with certitude today, but there are some reasonable interpretations:

1. Some commentators assume this verse refers to the practice of giving newly baptized children the names of deceased non-Christian relatives, with the hope that the dead might somehow share in the Lordâ??s mercy.

2. Another interpretation envisions the baptism of catechumens who have witnessed the persecution and martyrdom of their Christian predecessors. With their belief that the dead do rise, the Christian candidates come forward boldly and accept both the faith and its consequences.

3. A related view holds that the group consists of those baptized in connection with a dead Christian loved one. In the first century, many families were split religiously, as only one or two members may have converted to Christianity. When it came time for these new Christians to die, they no doubt exhorted their non-Christian family members to consider the Christian faith and to embrace it so that they could be together in the next world. After the deaths of their Christian loved ones, many family members no doubt did investigate the Christian faith and were baptized so that they could be reunited with their loved ones in the afterlife. At the time, many pagans had at best an unclear idea of what the afterlife was like, and there were a large number of sects promising immortality to those who were willing to undergo their initiation rituals. A pagan husband mourning the death of his Christian wife might thus have an unclear idea of what her religion was all about, but still have it fixed in his mind: "If I want to be with her again, I need to become a Christian, like she was, so I can go where Christians go in the afterlife." This, then, could prompt him to investigate Christianity, learn its teachings about the afterlife and the resurrection, and embrace faith in Christ, receiving Christian baptism for the sake of being united with his dead loved one. The same is true, by extension, for other family relations as well, such as parents and children, grandparents and grandchildren. Even today deathbed exhortations to live the Christian life are not uncommon. People still resolve to live as Christians in order to please dead loved ones, to honor their memories, and to be united with them in the next life. The difference is that, today, most of those being exhorted have already been baptized.

4. Others advance the possibility that Paul was referring to the practice of a heretical cult that existed in Corinth. On this theory, Paul was not endorsing the practice of the group, but merely citing it to emphasize the importance of the resurrection. Rather, his point was: If even heterodox Christians have a practice that makes no sense if there is no resurrection of the dead, how much more, then, should we orthodox Catholics believe in and hope for the resurrection of the dead.

There is no other evidence in the Bible or in the early Church Fathersâ?? writings of baptism being practiced on the living in place of the dead. Some Mormon writers assert that some Christian commentators have discussed the possibility of a kind of "baptism for the dead" among some in the Corinthian community in Paulâ??s time. But these commentators do not suggest that the practice was accepted or mainstream. Given the silence of Scripture and tradition, we conclude rightly when we see this behavior as another aberration within a community of believers already soundly scolded by Paul for its lack of charity, its factionalism, its immorality, its abuse of the Eucharist, and other matters.

Although we have no way of knowing for sure who was engaging in this practice, it is certain that Paul was not referring to orthodox Christians baptizing the dead. Catholic and Protestant scholars agree on that.

A Flat-Out Contradiction

The case against baptism for the dead is also made by the Mormon scriptures themselves. The current Mormon doctrine on baptism for the dead is quite unlike what Joseph Smith first taught. As in other cases, the Book of Mormon becomes an important tool for the Christian apologist. It contradicts much Mormon theology, and baptism for the dead is no exception.

In Alma 34:35-36 we read: "For behold, if ye have procrastinated the day of your repentance even until death, behold ye have become subjected to the spirit of the devil, and he does seal you his. Therefore, the spirit of the Lord has withdrawn from you and hath no place in you; the power of the devil is over you, and this is the final state of the wicked."

In other words, those who die as non-Mormons go to hell, period. Thereâ??s no suggestion of a later, vicarious admission into the Mormon church.

We also see present-day Mormon doctrine contradicted in 2 Nephi 9:15: "And it shall come to pass that when all men shall have passed from this first death unto life, insomuch as they have become immortal, they must appear before the judgment seat of the Holy One of Israel, and then cometh the judgment and then must they be judged according to the holy judgment of God. For the Lord God hath spoken it, and it is his eternal word, which cannot pass away, that they who are righteous shall be righteous still, and they who are filthy shall be filthy still; wherefore, they who are filthy . . . shall go away into everlasting fire, prepared for them; and their torment is as a lake of fire and brimstone, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever and has no end."

It is unforunate that Smith abandoned his own, earlier doctrine. It would not have made the Mormon scriptures any more authentic, but it would have prevented millions of futile Mormon proxy baptisms from being performed.

[Hannah Rebekah]

So the LDS "position" isn't that baptism for the dead was an accepted rite of the early Christian church, it's simply that these particular people were engaged in it? I'm still curious about the reference to "most" scholars. How is that statement supported? Do the majority of scholars accept this as an accepted practice of the early church? If not, what's the point?

How about the ancient writings and art?

Early Christian Writings:

From the writings of the Church Fathers during the 3rd century, Origen of Alexandria, a student scholar of Clement of Alexandria, wrote that John the Baptist had died before Christ, "so that he might descend to the lower regions and announce [preach] his coming. For everywhere the witness and forerunner of Jesus is John, being born before and dying shortly before the Son of God, so that not only to those of his generation but likewise to those who lived before Christ should liberation from the death be preached, and that he might everywhere prepare a people trained to receive the Lord."

(Origen, In Lucam Homily (Homily on Luke) 4, in PG 12 :1811.)

(picture is of John the Baptist preaching the gospel to those in hades before Christ came to redeem the dead. This is an Eastern Orthodox icon.)

Hippolytus, wrote that John the Baptist had died first that he might prepare the souls in the spirit world for the gospel. John, â??first preached to those in Hades, becoming a forerunner there when he was put to death by Herod, that there too he might intimate that the Saviour would descend to ransom the souls of the saints from the hand of death.â?

Later, a medieval Easter drama, the "Harrowing of Hell," John descends first, then is there to greet Christ when Christ descended.

St. Baptist in the Hades

Early Christian Art:

The depiction above is of "The Resurrection and the Preaching of St. Baptist in the Hades" Note how Christ grips the hands of those being resurrected out of hades. (8th picture down)

In the Ethiopic document known as the Testament of Our Lord and Our Savior Jesus Christ 38â??39, Jesus tells his apostles, "For this reason I descended and conversed with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, with your fathers the prophets, and I announced to them, in Sheol, the rest in the heavens where they shall come. With my right hand, I gave them the baptism of life, pardon and remission of all sin, as I did for you, and (as I shall do) hereafter for those who shall believe in me." He then tells them that he who believes "shall come out of the prison and will be delivered from chains, from punishment and from the fire," to which the apostles respond, "O Lord, you have truly given us joy and rest, for because of their faith and their confidence, you have announced to our fathers and to the prophets; also for us and for all (who believe in you)."

Celsus--Ancient Anti-Christian Writer:

"Celsus, making fun of the strange doctrine [of the Christians], asks Origen: '"Don't you people actually tell about him, that when he had failed to convert the people on this earth he went down to the underworld to try to convert the people down there?"

Origen's response:

"We assert that Jesus not only converted no small number of persons while he was in the body . . . but also, that when he became a spirit, without the covering of the body, he dwelt among those spirits which were without bodily covering, converting such of them as were willing to Himself."

(Origen, Against Celsus II'' 43, in PG 11:864-65)

<h3 class="post-title entry-title"> Gospel Taken To The Souls In Hades </h3> An early Christian work that was even among the earlier canonical books of the New Testament for some time, but was later taken out, was the second century apocalypse known as the Shepherd of Hermas. Had this book been retained as part of the canon, there would have been more references to baptism for the dead in the scriptures besides 1 Cor. 15. John P. Lundy wrote that that the Shepherd of Hermas "was the most popular of books in the Christian community, i. e., from the second to the fifth centuries" (Monumental Christianity, by John P. Lundy, Pub., in N.Y., J W Bouton, 1876, p.196).

"The Shepherd of Hermas was treated by some of the early fathers as if it formed part of the canon of scripture,..." (Butler's Lives of the Saints, revised edition by Herbert Thurston, S.J., and Donald Attwater, Vol.III, July . August . September, Pub. P.J. Kenedy & Sons, N.Y., 1956, p.678).

In the Ninth Similitude of Hermas: "...And I said, `Why then, Sir, did these forty stones also ascend with them out of the deep, having already received that seal.' He answered, 'Because these apostles and teachers who preached the name of the Son of God, dying after they had received his faith and power, preached to them who were dead before; and they gave this seal to them.. But these went down whilst they were alive, and came up alive; whereas those, who were before dead, went down dead, but came up alive. They went down, therefore, into the water with them, and again come up Through these therefore, they received life, and know the Son of God; for which cause they came up with them, and were fit to come into the building of the tower; and were not cut, but put in entire; because they died in righteousness and in great purity only this seal was wanting to them. Thus you have the explication of these things'".

[Daniel Peterson]

Thanks for the anonymous polemical cut-and-paste, Gervin. I'm inclined to stick with the sober, balanced, disinterested verdict of Dean Stendahl, already cited above: ""Once the theological pressures from later possible developments of practice and doctrine are felt less constricting," that is to say, once one is simply trying to read the text for what it says and not primarily to fight off the wickedness of Mormonism, "the text seems to speak plainly enough about a practice within the Church of vicarious baptisms for the dead. This is the view of most contemporary critical exegetes."

Incidentally, here are some LDS academic treatments of baptism for the dead and closely related matters:

Hugh W. Nibley, "Baptism for the Dead in Ancient Times"

http://mi.byu.edu/publications/books/?book...&chapid=522

Hugh W. Nibley, "Two Ways to Remember the Dead"

http://mi.byu.edu/publications/books/?book...&chapid=504

Gaye Strathearn, "Did the Early Christian Church Seek Salvation for the Dead?"

http://mi.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol...um=1&id=539

John A. Tvedtnes, "The Dead Shall Hear the Voice"

http://mi.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol...um=2&id=297

John A. Tvedtnes, "The Quick and the Dead"

http://mi.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol...um=2&id=674

John W. Welch, "Corinthian Religion and Baptism for the Dead (1 Corinthians 15:29): Insights from Archaeology and Anthropology"

http://mi.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol...um=2&id=223