Historical Christianity - What Is It Anyways?

[Bill Hamblin]

Hi Diglot,

Before dismissing the LDS position, you should probably take the time to read what LDS scholars have had to say on the subject. I've stared the most recent study (three parts), which summarizes past LDS scholarship, and actively engages non-LDS studies.

Bickmore, B. Restoring the Ancient Church: Joseph Smith and Early Christianity (1999), 205-226.

Bishop, G. “‘What Has Become of Our Fathers?’ Baptism for the Dead at Nauvoo,” Dialogue 23/2 (1990): 85-97

*Christiansen, K., R. Cook, and D. Paulsen, “The Harrowing of Hell: Salvation for the Dead in Early Christianity” JBMRS 19/1 (2010): 56-77

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=19&num=1&id=509

*Christiansen, K., D. Paulsen, and M. Pulido, “Redeeming the Dead: Tender Mercies, Turning of Hearts, and Restoration of Authority,” JBMRS 20/1 (2011): 28-51

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=20&num=1&id=590

*Mason, B. and D. Paulsen, “Baptism for the Dead in Early Christianity” JBMORS 19/2 (2010): 22-49

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=19&num=2&id=530

Nibley, H. “Baptism for the Dead in Ancient times,” {1949} CWHN 4:100–167

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=55&chapid=522

Paulsen, D. and B. Mason, “Baptism for the Dead in Early Christianity,” JBMRS 19/2 (2010): 22-49

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=19&num=2&id=530

Strathearn, G. “Did the Early Christian Church Seek Salvation for the Dead?” FARMS Review (2004): 419-425

Tvedtnes, J. “Baptism for the Dead in Early Christianity” in Parry and Ricks, The Temple in Time and Eternity

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=21&chapid=104

Tvedtnes, J. “The Quick and the Dead” [review of Hull, Baptism on Account of the Dead] FARMS Review 19/2 (2007)

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=19&num=2&id=674

Underwood, Grant, “Baptism for the Dead: Comparing RLDS and LDS Perspectives,” Dialogue 23/2 (1990): 99-105.

Welch, J. Review of DeMaris “Baptism for the Dead”, FARMS Review 8/1 (1996): 43-45

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=8&num=2&id=223

[diglot]

Thanks. Another poster here pointed me to these articles yesterday. I've read a couple of them and intend on reading the others this weekend.

Edited October 14, 2011 by diglot

[Bill Hamblin]

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.

I don't think that non-Mormons can use this verse to reject LDS view of baptism for the dead because it assumes far too much. That sword cuts both ways.

The LDS view is consistent with the New Testament on this matter. Given the nature of the evidence, nothing more can be proven or disproven on the matter.

[diglot]

I disagree. I think we can, to a reasonable degree, ascertain that, 1) this practice was only being used by a certain group of people in Corinth and not the larger Christian community there; 2) that (if they considered this baptism to be salvifically efficacious) Paul did not endorse the theology behind it (because it is not compatible with his baptismal theology); and 3) it was not part of the apostolic preaching (due to lack of mention).

Each of these three points, in my opinion, disagree with the notion that the Mormon doctrine of vicarious baptism was present in earliest Christianity.

There is good reason why all the scholars I have read on this topic do not think it is tenable to find this verse supporting the LDS baptismal view, and its not that they are anti-mormons or some such silly label as that.

As I said, though, I will give the rest of those articles you linked to a read this weekend and see what arguments present.

[3DOP]

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.

I would be uncomfortable with saying that St. Paul uses a false practice to emphasize the truth of the Resurrection. It seems to me like he could and would have found a better argument for the Resurrection, than that one church practices an illicit ritual. Unless the practice is universal and true, how does it argue for the Resurrection? What happens to the faith of the Corinthian who is persuaded on the basis of this practice in the Resurrection, when he visits Rome and finds out that the practice doesn't come from the Apostles and is unique to their location? If the practice is false, it doesn't argue very well for the truth of what it implies, does it?

1) I take the position then that whatever the practice is, Paul approves of it.

2) You have said that it assumes too much, in considering that it is vicarious and for unbelievers. I disagree. Follow this. If you take the position that this practise refers to water baptism, who else would it be for but unbelievers? Believers have already been baptized.

3) If this practise refers to water baptism, it would either have to be vicarious, or doing it to a dead person who had not been baptized in life. The former option seems much more likely and less problematic. Unless you believed in sprinkling, can you imagine taking corpses out to a stream and making sure they get completely under? Do corpses ordinarily float or sink? In any event, what a cruddy job that would be. If I believed this practise to be a reference to any kind of water baptism, vicarious baptisms for dead unbelievers is by far the most likely way it would have to have been done.

4) As for the celestial kingdom, it doesn't seem necessary to prove that the early Church even had such distinctions. They did not have Latter-day revelation. It would be more than enough for an LDS to demonstrate that the early church practised vicarious baptisms for the dead at all, even if it was conceded that the divisions of the kingdom of heaven were not so clearly revealed 2,000 years ago.

Edited October 14, 2011 by 3DOP

[Vance]

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.

Well, let's see.

If they were alive and a believer then they wouldn't need baptism for the dead, would they.

If they were alive and a non-believer then they wouldn't need or WANT baptism (for the dead of other wise), would they.

If they were dead and a believer (before their death) then they wouldn't need baptism for the dead, would they.

Now, if they were dead and a non-believer (before their death) then they WOULD need baptism for the dead, WOULDN'T THEY!!

Logically, it is a sound "assumption" isn't it?

The practice of baptism for the dead was not commonplace in earliest Christianity (the apostolic period).

You don't know this. In fact there is NO WAY to "know" this.

Outside of a certain group of people in Corinth there is zero evidence for this practice as far as I am aware.

Here is a clue. Lack of evidence is NOT PROOF of absence.

That does not fit the hypothesis that vicarious baptism was part of the apostolic message.

I disagree. With just a few, very reasonable assumptions it is VERY logical that it "was part of the apostolic message".

It all depends upon your presumptions.

Why would Paul dissociate himself and the larger Corinththian Christian community from those who performed vicarious baptism?

Well, a hypothetical question isn't helpful at this point.

One reason would be that it runs counter to baptismal theology.

A hypothetical response to a hypothetical question. Not useful at all.

This was an aberrant (and anomalous) practice in early Christianity.

As stated before, there is no way for you to "know" this. You can only ASSUME or PRESUME it.

To use this verse as supporting the current LDS doctrine is clutching at straws.

Nah, not at all. It very clearly SUPPORTS the LDS doctrine.

[Vance]

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.

Look, very clearly, anyone who can't claim to know exactly what a certain verse means, BUT THEN STILL claims Mormons are WRONG about it, are just ANTI-Mormon.

I have seen this approach several times before. And it is logically LAUGHABLE! And should be mocked for the silliness it is. If you don't like that, then DON'T do it.

[diglot]

I would be uncomfortable with saying that St. Paul uses a false practice to emphasize the truth of the Resurrection. It seems to me like he could and would have found a better argument for the Resurrection, than that one church practices an illicit ritual. Unless the practice is universal and true, how does it argue for the Resurrection? What happens to the faith of the Corinthian who is persuaded on the basis of this practice in the Resurrection, when he visits Rome and finds out that the practice doesn't come from the Apostles and is unique to their location? If the practice is false, it doesn't argue very well for the truth of what it implies, does it?

Of all the literature I have read on this verse, there is a split of opinion as to why Paul uses them as an example in this discourse on the resurrection. Some seem to think that he is actually implicitly condemning the practice in that verse by saying, "why do those people bother to baptize for the dead if the dead are not evem raised."

An article by DeMaris (in the JBL I think) has an interesting discssion on how Paul disapproved of this practice.

1) I take the position then that whatever the practice is, Paul approves of it.

Fair enough.

2) You have said that it assumes too much, in considering that it is vicarious and for unbelievers. I disagree. Follow this. If you take the position that this practise refers to water baptism, who else would it be for but unbelievers? Believers have already been baptized.

I said it assumes too much that it is for unbelievers. Again, out of all of the literature I read on this over the past few days that says that verse is vicarious baptism (as opposed to some metaphorical interpretation), almost all of the scholars think this was done for dead believers (who never had the chance to be baptized while alive). There are some who posit it was done for unbelievers but I haven't been able to read their arguments for this position yet unfortunately.

3) If this practise refers to water baptism, it would either have to be vicarious, or doing it to a dead person who had not been baptized in life. The former option seems much more likely and less problematic. Unless you believed in sprinkling, can you imagine taking corpses out to a stream and making sure they get completely under? Do corpses ordinarily float or sink? In any event, what a cruddy job that would be. If I believed this practise to be a reference to any kind of water baptism, vicarious baptisms for dead unbelievers is by far the most likely way it would have to have been done.

Yes, a cruddy job indeed.

4) As for the celestial kingdom, it doesn't seem necessary to prove that the early Church even had such distinctions. They did not have Latter-day revelation. It would be more than enough for an LDS to demonstrate that the early church practised vicarious baptisms for the dead at all, even if it was conceded that the divisions of the kingdom of heaven were not so clearly revealed 2,000 years ago.

Fair enough. So why then do you think the early Church performed vicarious baptisms if it wasn't for the purpose of Celestial exaltation?

[Vance]

I disagree. I think we can, to a reasonable degree, ascertain that, 1) this practice was only being used by a certain group of people in Corinth and not the larger Christian community there;

No, you can only reasonably PRESUME it, not ascertain it.

2) that (if they considered this baptism to be salvifically efficacious) Paul did not endorse the theology behind it (because it is not compatible with his baptismal theology);

I don't see how you can say that considering that Paul used it in support of his argument for the resurrection.

I think it is bad form to use false doctrine to support true doctrine, don't you?

and 3) it was not part of the apostolic preaching (due to lack of mention).

Logically unsound,

1) lack of mention is NOT PROOF of absence.

2) it WAS mentioned.

Each of these three points, in my opinion, disagree with the notion that the Mormon doctrine of vicarious baptism was present in earliest Christianity.

I and others have shown the error of your ways.

That doesn't mean that you have to accept it as doctrine, it just means that you can't tell us that is a false doctrine.

There is good reason why all the scholars I have read on this topic do not think it is tenable to find this verse supporting the LDS baptismal view, and its not that they are anti-mormons or some such silly label as that.

Really? So they are using dubious logic and reason to declare LDS baptism of the dead as false doctrine and we are to accept that it isn't "anti-Mormon"?

As I see it, the Catholics (since they reject "sola scriptura") can have a legitimate claim to it being a false doctrine, but not so with Evangelicals.

[diglot]

Look, very clearly, anyone who can't claim to know exactly what a certain verse means, BUT THEN STILL claims Mormons are WRONG about it, are just ANTI-Mormon.

I have seen this approach several times before. And it is logically LAUGHABLE! And should be mocked for the silliness it is. If you don't like that, then DON'T do it.

Vance, I am saying that while we can not know with absolute certainty what exactly this verse is all about, there are various points of what we can ascertain (agreed upon by the majority of scholars) that makes the LDS position of using this verse to support their doctrine pretty much untenable.

From reading your other posts I get the feeling that you don't gave a clue as to how the historical method is used in this case (or probably in any case). An argument from silence is a perfectly valid line of reasoning to draw a conclusion from (if that silence is not what would be expected).

As I said earlier, the vast majority of scholarly literature that has been published on this issue comes to conclusions that are not compatible with how this verse is commonly used to support the LDS view of vicarious baptism (which is what Joseph Smith did in D&C). You can just brush aside scholar's arguments with, "Well, they're just anti-mormons", but noone will take you seriously if you do so.

Edited October 14, 2011 by diglot

[altersteve]

Vance, I am saying that while we can not know with absolute certainty what exactly this verse is all about, there are various points of what we can ascertain (agreed upon by the majority of scholars) that makes the LDS position of using this verse to support their doctrine pretty much untenable.

We can't? Because I do.

[diglot]

We can't? Because I do.

Good for you. You should write a paper on it and get it published.

[altersteve]

Good for you. You should write a paper on it and get it published.

I don't need to do that. It's really not that difficult of a verse to understand. It's asking, if "they" don't believe in a resurrection, why do "they" practice baptism for the dead? Completely consistent with the LDS view. Very simple.

[3DOP]

diglot

So why then do you think the early Church performed vicarious baptisms if it wasn't for the purpose of Celestial exaltation?

3DOP

My observations above were based on the presupposition that the practise in question had to do with water baptism. I do not hold that presupposition. My position is distinctively Catholic, and could not fit into your belief system anyway. A couple of centuries before Joseph Smith, St. Francis deSales uses this passage to effectively refute Luther's rejection of the Catholic Church's Traditional teaching on purgatory. It would probably be a distraction to start exploring how Catholics might deal with the passage.

[diglot]

I don't need to do that. It's really not that difficult of a verse to understand. It's asking, if "they" don't believe in a resurrection, why do "they" practice baptism for the dead? Completely consistent with the LDS view. Very simple.

You really should publish this in a journal. I'm sure people would love to know how you solved a difficult issue, overturning the opinions of many scholars in the process, all in a short simple post on an internet forum.

[altersteve]

You really should publish this in a journal. I'm sure people would love to know how you solved a difficult issue, overturning the opinions of many scholars in the process, all in a short simple post on an internet forum.

I'm simply reading what the verse says in light of modern revelation. It's not a "difficult issue" at all if you know what God has revealed about baptism for the dead in these latter days.

[3DOP]

Vance

As I see it, the Catholics (since they reject "sola scriptura") can have a legitimate claim to it being a false doctrine, but not so with Evangelicals

3DOP

We might accept another authority alongside Scripture, but we have to find a plausible explanation for the passage. We might look to Tradition for help with an interpretation. That is what St. Francis deSales did. I do not want to get off-track, but I would welcome an opportunity to help you understand us better. We still have the highest view of Scripture. We fall in no way behind Protestants with regards to biblical inerrancy. The only difference is that we think the Bible is really hard to undersand...alone.

But by taking note of what the Church has always taught and practised, it guides us to the correct interpretations of Scriptures that admit multiple plausible interpretations. How literal is John 6: "My Body is meat my Blood is drink". Why in the world would you force yourself to consider such a question in a vacuum, when all you have to do is look at what the Church has done and taught about it already? That is what it means to reject sola scriptura. I don't think it is any easier for a Catholic to say "baptism for the dead" is false than for a Protestant. As a matter of fact, you will note that I side with St. Francis in affirming that the practise of "baptism for the dead" is true and as necessary today as ever.

Edited October 14, 2011 by 3DOP

[zerinus]

Vance, I am saying that while we can not know with absolute certainty what exactly this verse is all about, there are various points of what we can ascertain (agreed upon by the majority of scholars) that makes the LDS position of using this verse to support their doctrine pretty much untenable.

From reading your other posts I get the feeling that you don't gave a clue as to how the historical method is used in this case (or probably in any case). An argument from silence is a perfectly valid line of reasoning to draw a conclusion from (if that silence is not what would be expected).

As I said earlier, the vast majority of scholarly literature that has been published on this issue comes to conclusions that are not compatible with how this verse is commonly used to support the LDS view of vicarious baptism (which is what Joseph Smith did in D&C). You can just brush aside scholar's arguments with, "Well, they're just anti-mormons", but noone will take you seriously if you do so.

Generalizations again. When you are not arguing from silence, you are arguing from generalizations. It is simply not known, and cannot be determined with certainty, what Paul meant by this verse, except that he was referring to vicarious baptisms, and he approved of the practise.

Edited October 14, 2011 by zerinus

[Vance]

Vance, I am saying that while we can not know with absolute certainty what exactly this verse is all about, there are various points of what we can ascertain (agreed upon by the majority of scholars) that makes the LDS position of using this verse to support their doctrine pretty much untenable.

Sorry, but all of the arguments I have seen against this doctrine first, preclude that is false, second ignore evidence against the first, third, give undue weight to anything (valid or not) against it. Your "majority of scholars" not withstanding.

BTW, have you heard of the logical fallacies known as "appeal to authority" and "ad populum"?

From reading your other posts I get the feeling that you don't gave a clue as to how the historical method is used in this case (or probably in any case). An argument from silence is a perfectly valid line of reasoning to draw a conclusion from (if that silence is not what would be expected).

"Historical method"? It appears to me that you are ignoring all historical evidence that Baptism for the dead was practiced by the early Christians. Also, the Bible is not and can not be a complete record of all Christian doctrines and practices. AND it doesn't claim to be one either.

Here is a clue, if it was a complete record there wouldn't be the divisions of Christianity that they are.

As I said earlier, the vast majority of scholarly literature that has been published on this issue comes to conclusions that are not compatible with how this verse is commonly used to support the LDS view of vicarious baptism (which is what Joseph Smith did in D&C). You can just brush aside scholar's arguments with, "Well, they're just anti-mormons", but noone will take you seriously if you do so.

Good thing I don't say that "scholar's arguments" are "just anti-mormons".

What I said was, "Look, very clearly, anyone who can't claim to know exactly what a certain verse means, BUT THEN STILL claims Mormons are WRONG about it, are just ANTI-Mormon."

Do the scholars that you claim disagree with our understanding admit to not knowing what that verse means? IF not then they are not part of those of which I was speaking. IF so, then clearly they are just "anti-Mormon". If the don't know what it means, THEN THEY HAVE NO GROUNDS FOR THE CLAIM THAT WE ARE WRONG.

It isn't that complicated.

By the way, have you heard of the logical fallacies known as "appeal to authority" and "ad populum"?

Also, I doubt that you have actually read enough scholarly work on this subject to make any declare what "majority of scholars" have said about it. Just sayin.

[Vance]

Vance

As I see it, the Catholics (since they reject "sola scriptura") can have a legitimate claim to it being a false doctrine, but not so with Evangelicals

3DOP

We might accept another authority alongside Scripture, but we have to find a plausible explanation for the passage. We might look to Tradition for help with an interpretation. That is what St. Francis deSales did. I do not want to get off-track, but I would welcome an opportunity to help you understand us better. We still have the highest view of Scripture. We fall in no way behind Protestants with regards to biblical inerrancy. The only difference is that we think the Bible is really hard to undersand...alone.

But by taking note of what the Church has always taught and practised, it guides us to the correct interpretations of Scriptures that admit multiple plausible interpretations. How literal is John 6: "My Body is meat my Blood is drink". Why in the world would you force yourself to consider such a question in a vacuum, when all you have to do is look at what the Church has done and taught about it already? That is what it means to reject sola scriptura. I don't think it is any easier for a Catholic to say "baptism for the dead" is false than for a Protestant. As a matter of fact, you will note that I side with St. Francis in affirming that the practise of "baptism for the dead" is true and as necessary today as ever.

3DOP,

I wasn't attempting to declare what Catholics actually believe on this subject. I was only trying to show that they could, if they so desired, legitimately reject this doctrine because they are not "sola scriptura".

Sorry, if I gave any other impression.

Edited October 14, 2011 by Vance

[Vance]

We can't? Because I do.

I was referring to "knowing" in the "scholarly" sense, not the spiritual.

Sorry for the confusion.

[diglot]

BTW, have you heard of the logical fallacies known as "appeal to authority" and "ad populum"?

Yes I have heard of them which is why I didn't use them.

"Historical method"? It appears to me that you are ignoring all historical evidence that Baptism for the dead was practiced by the early Christians. Also, the Bible is not and can not be a complete record of all Christian doctrines and practices. AND it doesn't claim to be one either.

I never claimed that about the Bible.

Where is all this evidence for this practice in th apostolic and post-apostolic church? Apart from a certain group if people in Corinth (that Paul dissociated himself and the main audience from), I see no other evidence for it until mid/late second century.

What I said was, "Look, very clearly, anyone who can't claim to know exactly what a certain verse means, BUT THEN STILL claims Mormons are WRONG about it, are just ANTI-Mormon."

Do the scholars that you claim disagree with our understanding admit to not knowing what that verse means? IF not then they are not part of those of which I was speaking. IF so, then clearly they are just "anti-Mormon". If the don't know what it means, THEN THEY HAVE NO GROUNDS FOR THE CLAIM THAT WE ARE WRONG.

You are wrong. One doesn't have to know for certain what exactly this verse is referring to in order to ascertain particular aspects of what it is and is not referring to.

[diglot]

Generalizations again. When you are not arguing from silence, you are arguing from generalizations. It is simply not known, and cannot be determined with certainty, what Paul meant by this verse, except that he was referring to vicarious baptisms, and he approved of the practise.

Yea, yea... I deal in generalizations. If you say so.

If we are going to throw rhetoric at one another, then you just deal in dogmatism.

If it can be known for certain that this verse does refer to vicarious baptisms, and that Paul approved of it, then why do many commentators on this verse disagree with you?

[altersteve]

If it can be known for certain that this verse does refer to vicarious baptisms, and that Paul approved of it, then why do many commentators on this verse disagree with you?

Because these commentators don't have modern revelation clarifying what it says.

[zerinus]

Yea, yea... I deal in generalizations. If you say so.

If we are going to throw rhetoric at one another, then you just deal in dogmatism.

If it can be known for certain that this verse does refer to vicarious baptisms, and that Paul approved of it, then why do many commentators on this verse disagree with you?

They don't just disagree with me; they disagree with other scholars who agree with me. Conclusion: Nothing more can be said or is known about this verse except that it refers to vicarious baptisms, and Paul approved of the practise.

Edited October 14, 2011 by zerinus