Baptism ceasing? NT Scholars

[JLHPROF]

Hey all my scholarly friends on the board,

I recently conversed with someone who is claiming Paul and Peter ceased water baptism by 50 AD and claiming they discovered that the Baptism of Fire was supposedly higher and supplanting of the Baptism by water.
Based this primarily on :

• I Corinthians 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
  15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
  16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
  17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

Now of course I don't think he has a leg to stand on doctrinally.  The scriptures (including the AoF) make it clear baptism is necessary.  It's easy enough to show that Christ commanded Baptism.

But for our resident NT scholars - any idea if there is any historical grounds for this claim?  Were there continual baptisms recorded from the time of Christ and John all the way through the Apostolic period?
We know that Baptism continued in the early Christian Church and down through the Middle Ages in various forms.

But is his interpretation of Paul of any merit historically?  Because it certainly isn't doctrinally.
I can find Christian articles arguing both sides of the topic.  Apparently my friend is adopting some evangelical notions on relationship over ordinance etc.

Edited November 3, 2017 by JLHPROF

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Hey all my scholarly friends on the board,

I recently conversed with someone who is claiming Paul and Peter ceased water baptism by 50 AD and claiming they discovered that the Baptism of Fire was supposedly higher and supplanting of the Baptism by water.
Based this primarily on :

• I Corinthians 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
  15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
  16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
  17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

Now of course I don't think he has a leg to stand on doctrinally.  The scriptures (including the AoF) make it clear baptism is necessary.  It's easy enough to show that Christ commanded Baptism.

But for our resident NT scholars - any idea if there is any historical grounds for this claim?  Were there continual baptisms recorded from the time of Christ and John all the way through the Apostolic period?
We know that Baptism continued in the early Christian Church and down through the Middle Ages in various forms.

But is his interpretation of Paul of any merit historically?  Because it certainly isn't doctrinally.
I can find Christian articles arguing both sides of the topic.  Apparently my friend is adopting some evangelical notions on relationship over ordinance etc.

I am not a scholar but this distorts my understanding of what he was saying totally.   It seems this approach misses the context totally.

Quote

 

¹¹ For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.

¹² Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.

¹³ Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

¹⁴ I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;

¹⁵ Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.

¹⁶ And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.

¹⁷ For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

¹⁸ For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

 

It seems clear some were being baptized by Paul's followers, others by Cephas, etc perhaps in the name of Paul and/or Cephas etc.

The apostasy was already beginning because followers were going out on their own to take baptism to the world without the proper form- "In the Name of Jesus Christ...."

Peter was denouncing this.  

The whole chapter says essentially "Do EVERYTHING in the Name of Christ" - I think that is the context.

Look at verses 9 and 10 which set up the quoted verses

Quote

 

⁹ God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord.

¹⁰ Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

 

The whole topic seems to be "Do everything in Christ's name, who was crucified, so we remain unified"

I see no evidence that the chapter has anything to do with stopping baptism

Edited November 3, 2017 by mfbukowski

[theplains]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

But is his interpretation of Paul of any merit historically?  Because it certainly isn't doctrinally.
I can find Christian articles arguing both sides of the topic.  Apparently my friend is adopting some evangelical notions on relationship over ordinance etc.

The context of Paul's message is found in verses 12 and 13.  When people try to build theology with words taken
out of context, false teachings arise.

Thanks,
Jim

[strappinglad]

2 hours ago, theplains said:

When people try to build theology with words taken
out of context, false teachings arise.

What? I'm sure there are a few thousand Christian sects that would disagree that they were built on a couple of verses taken out of context. I mean really!

[LittleNipper]

7 hours ago, strappinglad said:

What? I'm sure there are a few thousand Christian sects that would disagree that they were built on a couple of verses taken out of context. I mean really!

This came to mind immediately: Otherwise, what will they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise at all? Why then are they baptized for the dead?”

[Bobbieaware]

30 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

This came to mind immediately: Otherwise, what will they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise at all? Why then are they baptized for the dead?”

There’s a world of difference between a prophet of God receiving many revelations pertaining to salvation for the dead, including but not limited to the ordinance of baptism for the dead, and the Bible coincidentally containing a verse that indicates the early Christian Church may have also believed in performing vicarious gospel ordinances for the dead, and then comparing the experiences of the aforesaid prophet to an uninspired man — who by his own admission freely admits he is no prophet of God — that seizes on one ambiguous Bible verse and without authority from God claims baptism is not a necessary gospel ordinance, and comes to this dubious conclusion even though the Lord Jesus Christ repeatedly testified otherwise.

Edited November 4, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[Gray]

Also not a scholar, but I think your friend's position has no historical merit 

[theplains]

7 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

This came to mind immediately: Otherwise, what will they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise at all? Why then are they baptized for the dead?”

See https://www.gotquestions.org/baptism-dead.html.  It has a good explanation for this passage.

Thanks,
Jim

[LittleNipper]

11 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

There’s a world of difference between a prophet of God receiving many revelations pertaining to salvation for the dead, including but not limited to the ordinance of baptism for the dead, and the Bible coincidentally containing a verse that indicates the early Christian Church may have also believed in performing vicarious gospel ordinances for the dead, and then comparing the experiences of the aforesaid prophet to an uninspired man — who by his own admission freely admits he is no prophet of God — that seizes on one ambiguous Bible verse and without authority from God claims baptism is not a necessary gospel ordinance, and comes to this dubious conclusion even though the Lord Jesus Christ repeatedly testified otherwise.

Which prophet of God are you referring to?

[Freedom]

7 hours ago, theplains said:

See https://www.gotquestions.org/baptism-dead.html.  It has a good explanation for this passage.

Thanks,
Jim

This argument has no basis in logic, he is just using conjecture to refute a doctrine that he does not practice. 

[Robert F. Smith]

12 hours ago, Gray said:

Also not a scholar, but I think your friend's position has no historical merit 

The late great non-Mormon biblical scholar, James Barr, thought that it had historical merit, and even stated unequivocally that Paul was using language in I Cor 15:29 that he had gotten from II Maccabees 12:44-45.  Even the overall context of I Peter 4:5-6 applies as well.  Barr, Holy Scripture: Canon, Authority, Criticism (Phila.: Westminster Press, 1983), 40-43 n. 19.

Compare Rabbi Akiba's tale of a son's prayer saving his dead father from punishment in Hell (Joseph H. Hertz, ed., The Authorized Daily Prayer Book, 2nd ed. [N.Y.: Bloch, 1948], 270-271); cf. also II Macc 7:9,36, 14:46, IV Macc 6:28-29; Isa 53:5-12 (4QM frag 5), Mk 10:45, Acts 24:21; Talmud Babli Yoma 86b.

Compare Lung-kwong Lo (Divinity School of Chung Chi College, CUHK), “ʽBaptized for the dead’ as an Identity Marker of Early Christianity,” paper presented Nov 20, 2011, at the SBL annual meeting in San Francisco (I was at that annual mtg),

Quote

According to this belief and Paul's courage to facing death as a martyr, "baptized for the dead" in v. 29 should be understood as ordinary baptism for those who died as martyrs before they got chance to be baptized alive. 

Spencer MacDonald once added the Orthodox and Roman Catholic principle of "'Intercession for the Dead' ('In addition to praying for each other in life, early Christians would pray for those who had died')."  Compare I Tim 2:1. 

[Gray]

13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The late great non-Mormon biblical scholar, James Barr, thought that it had historical merit, and even stated unequivocally that Paul was using language in I Cor 15:29 that he had gotten from II Maccabees 12:44-45.  Even the overall context of I Peter 4:5-6 applies as well.  Barr, Holy Scripture: Canon, Authority, Criticism (Phila.: Westminster Press, 1983), 40-43 n. 19.

Compare Rabbi Akiba's tale of a son's prayer saving his dead father from punishment in Hell (Joseph H. Hertz, ed., The Authorized Daily Prayer Book, 2nd ed. [N.Y.: Bloch, 1948], 270-271); cf. also II Macc 7:9,36, 14:46, IV Macc 6:28-29; Isa 53:5-12 (4QM frag 5), Mk 10:45, Acts 24:21; Talmud Babli Yoma 86b.

Compare Lung-kwong Lo (Divinity School of Chung Chi College, CUHK), “ʽBaptized for the dead’ as an Identity Marker of Early Christianity,” paper presented Nov 20, 2011, at the SBL annual meeting in San Francisco (I was at that annual mtg),

Spencer MacDonald once added the Orthodox and Roman Catholic principle of "'Intercession for the Dead' ('In addition to praying for each other in life, early Christians would pray for those who had died')."  Compare I Tim 2:1. 

Sorry, I wasn't talking about baptism for the dead. I was referring to the OP about baptism ceasing early in Christian tradition. I should have used the quote function. 

[JLHPROF]

Thank you everyone for your responses.  

My friend it seems has begun to fall into the doctrinal downward trap of losing belief in authority, ordinances, etc and is heading towards the all you need is love and Jesus paradigm.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Gray said:

Sorry, I wasn't talking about baptism for the dead. I was referring to the OP about baptism ceasing early in Christian tradition. I should have used the quote function. 

Well, anyhow Gray, you made me assemble the materials, and that is good in its own right.  Time and energy was not wasted.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Thank you everyone for your responses.  

My friend it seems has begun to fall into the doctrinal downward trap of losing belief in authority, ordinances, etc and is heading towards the all you need is love and Jesus paradigm.

Hey, I know a lot of good Protestant evangelicals.  Nice people.  Even the Beatles believed that:

 

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Hey, I know a lot of good Protestant evangelicals.  Nice people.  Even the Beatles believed that:

 

I do too.

But without the ordinances the most honorable men on earth cannot rise above the Terrestrial and return to God's presence.  Love is not all you need.

[Gray]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Well, anyhow Gray, you made me assemble the materials, and that is good in its own right.  Time and energy was not wasted.

Glad I could inadvertently help in some way

[RevTestament]

On 11/3/2017 at 3:24 PM, JLHPROF said:

Hey all my scholarly friends on the board,

I recently conversed with someone who is claiming Paul and Peter ceased water baptism by 50 AD and claiming they discovered that the Baptism of Fire was supposedly higher and supplanting of the Baptism by water.
Based this primarily on :

• I Corinthians 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
  15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
  16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
  17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

Now of course I don't think he has a leg to stand on doctrinally.  The scriptures (including the AoF) make it clear baptism is necessary.  It's easy enough to show that Christ commanded Baptism.

But for our resident NT scholars - any idea if there is any historical grounds for this claim?  Were there continual baptisms recorded from the time of Christ and John all the way through the Apostolic period?
We know that Baptism continued in the early Christian Church and down through the Middle Ages in various forms.

But is his interpretation of Paul of any merit historically?  Because it certainly isn't doctrinally.
I can find Christian articles arguing both sides of the topic.  Apparently my friend is adopting some evangelical notions on relationship over ordinance etc.

Well, didn't see my response, so I'm going to add it. I believe Paul is trying to combat a problem that some are bragging or trying to assert authority over others by saying "I was baptized by Paul." To combat this he stopped baptizing, but let his assistants do the baptizing. This actually has precedent set by Yeshua, who did not baptize Himself, but let his apostles do the baptizing.  I believe there are some verses elsewhere which kind of fill this in, but I'm not going to look for them now.

Did baptizing stop? Absolutely not. There are many baptismal fonts scattered throughout Asia Minor and the Levant which we know were used by ancient Christians. Even the Lateran in Rome had a baptismal font, which was later removed I believe. All the early Church literature is replete with baptism - the Didache, etc.

[RBoylan]

Hi. I rarely post on forums, but I saw this thread and I have written a bit on the theology of baptism in the New Testament. I addressed 1 Cor 1:17 here:

 

Refuting Douglas Wilson on Water Baptism and Salvation
URL:  http://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2017/10/refuting-douglas-wilson-on-water.html

 

Under "Further Reading," I link to other posts I have made exegeting some of the other relevant texts.

 

I hope this helps in some way.

[theplains]

On 04/11/2017 at 10:44 PM, Freedom said:

This argument has no basis in logic, he is just using conjecture to refute a doctrine that he does not practice. 

Why did Paul use the word 'they' instead of 'we' in regards to people baptizing for the dead?

Thanks,
Jim

[RBoylan]

2 hours ago, theplains said:

Why did Paul use the word 'they' instead of 'we' in regards to people baptizing for the dead?

Thanks,
Jim

He didn't actually use "they."

 

The Greek text of 1 Cor 15:29 reads as followed (followed by my translation of the Greek):

 

Ἐπεὶ τί ποιήσουσιν οἱ βαπτιζόμενοι ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν; εἰ ὅλως νεκροὶ οὐκ ἐγείρονται, τί καὶ βαπτίζονται ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν

 

Else why are the one's being baptised on behalf of the dead ones? If the dead are not raised at all, then why are the one's being baptised on behalf of the dead ones?

 

 

The Greek text does not have the pronoun “they.” Instead, it uses a present passive participle, literally, “the being baptised ones” (οι βαπτιζομενοι). Contra critics who harp on the pronoun “they” and their ignorance of the original language texts, the verse is entirely neutral towards the question of whether Paul himself was in favour of this doctrine (though some commentators argue that v.30 shows Paul associated himself with those who were baptised on behalf of the dead).

There is much modern scholarship supporting the LDS reading of 1 Cor 15:29 and baptism for the dead being a valid early Christian practice, not one condemned by Paul et al. Note the following example:

 

Quote

It cannot be denied that Paul is here speaking of a vicarious baptism: one is baptised for the dead to ensure for them a share in the effect of baptism, and this must relate to a post-mortal life. It is also clear that Paul himself refers to this baptismal practice, and without distancing himself from it (This is the embarrassing perception which is the reason for some (comparatively few) interpreters making an imaginative attempt to ignore that this relates to a vicarious baptism). (Søren Agersnap, Baptism and the New Life: A Study of Romans 6:1-14 [Langelandsgade, Denmark: Aarhus University Press, 1999], 175-76)

 

 

Most recently, David Bentley Hart, in his The New Testament: A Translation (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2017), writes the following about 1 Cor 15:29  on p.348 n. ac:

 

 

Quote

The presence of Christians receiving baptism on behalf of other persons who died unbaptized was evidently a common enough practice in the apostolic church that Paul can use it as a support for his argument without qualification. and the form of the Greek (ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν [^hyper tōn nekrōn]) leaves no doubt that it is to just such a posthumous proxy baptism that he is referring.

 

 

 

[Freedom]

6 hours ago, theplains said:

Why did Paul use the word 'they' instead of 'we' in regards to people baptizing for the dead?

Thanks,
Jim

To add to RBoylan, this reference is a standard 'if...then' statement where a falsehood is followed by a truth. For example, if smoking does not cause cancer, why do smokers have higher rates of cancer? In this case we have a falsehood 'if the dead rise not at all' followed by a truth 'then why are they baptized for the dead?"

[theplains]

On 06/11/2017 at 8:19 PM, RBoylan said:

There is much modern scholarship supporting the LDS reading of 1 Cor 15:29 and baptism for the dead being a valid early Christian practice, not one condemned by Paul et al. Note the following example:

New Testament Christians did not baptize for dead people in the font supported by 12 oxen   The font was used for Old
Testament priests and washings (as they made sacrifices daily).

Thanks,
Jim

[JLHPROF]

8 minutes ago, theplains said:

New Testament Christians did not baptize for dead people in the font supported by 12 oxen   The font was used for Old
Testament priests and washings (as they made sacrifices daily).

Thanks,
Jim

Correct - because the font belonged to those running the temple, not the Christian believers.  And there was no work for the dead until after Christ so that usage of the font wasn't established at that time.

Christ's followers never had the opportunity to build a temple until the Apostleship had been lost.  But according to Paul that didn't stop them being baptized for their dead.

[RBoylan]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

New Testament Christians did not baptize for dead people in the font supported by 12 oxen   The font was used for Old
Testament priests and washings (as they made sacrifices daily).

Thanks,
Jim

Your response is basically "nuh-uh." They practised baptism for the dead, and as I show in my article responding to Douglas Wilson, they held to baptismal regeneration, an essential building block of the doctrine.

 

The use of a font supported by 12 oxen is not needed for the practice to be valid and for the ordinance to be efficacious.