So, why get baptized for DEAD people

[cdowis]

On 9/30/2018 at 9:30 PM, LittleNipper said:

 And did Jesus ever get baptized for the dead? 

 Vicarious work for the dead could only be done after His resurrection.

He gave the apostles instructions on temple ordinances after the resurrection.  Acts 1: 3,   Matt 13:11

[Stargazer]

Here's the thing that makes me wonder.  Evangelicals completely ignore the dead.  And yet, what will happen with those of them who never even had a chance to hear of Jesus Christ, let alone accept Him as their savior.  Jesus told Nicodemus that baptism was required to enter into the Kingdom of God.  It was so essential that Jesus himself requested baptism -- even though, as a sinless person he had no need of it, and John the Baptist was surprised to see him at the river, with him knowing that he, John, needed the baptism which Jesus would provide (baptism of fire, i.e. the Holy Ghost).  It was so important that the apostles re-baptized a person who had apparently been baptized by someone without authority.  

And yet there are those who question not only baptism of the living -- claiming that it's "nice but not necessary" -- but completely reject it for the dead who didn't have a chance to be baptized in life -- disregarding Paul's teaching in 1 Cor. 15:29 with a hand-waving non-explanation.

For example, we have this from Got Questions:

Quote

Question: "What is baptism for the dead?"

Answer: Baptism for the dead is a non-biblical practice where a living person is baptized in lieu of a person that passed away, as a means of making a public profession of faith for a person that is already deceased. We can, essentially, think of it as the practice of baptizing a dead person.

The practice has as its basis the misinterpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:29: “Otherwise, what will they do, those being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not at all raised, why indeed are they baptized on behalf of the dead?” This is a difficult passage to interpret, but we do know by comparing it with the rest of Scripture that it does not mean that a dead person can be saved by someone else being baptized on his or her behalf, because baptism is not a requirement for salvation in the first place (Ephesians 2:8; Romans 3:28; 4:3; 6:3-4). The entire passage (vv. 12-29) is about the surety of the resurrection, not about baptism for the dead.

What was being baptized for the dead? It is a mysterious passage, and there have been more than thirty different interpretations put forward. 1. The plain meaning of the Greek in verse 29 is that some people are being baptized on behalf of those who have died—and if there is no resurrection, why are they doing this? 2. Either Paul is referring to a pagan custom (notice he uses they, not "we"), or to a superstitious and unscriptural practice in the Corinthian church of vicarious baptism for believers who died before being baptized. 3. Either way, he certainly does not approve of the practice; he merely says that if there is no resurrection, why would the custom take place? The Mormon practice of baptism for the dead is neither scriptural nor sensible. Baptism for the dead is a practice that was common in the pagan religions of Greece and is still practiced today by some cults; but it doesn't change a person's eternal destiny, for that is determined while he lives (Luke 16:26).

because baptism is not a requirement for salvation in the first place - the verses offered in support of this amazing claim (Ephesians 2:8; Romans 3:28; 4:3; 6:3-4) do not support this claim at all.  But if we accept them as authoritative in this case, what then of John 3:5 "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." ?  Here I am supposing that "entering the kingdom of God" equates to "salvation".  Am I wrong?  Or are they different things, and you can avoid baptism, and get salvation but not the kingdom of God?  Or do Paul's words take precedence over Christ's? Can we then ignore the Gospels, and take our doctrine from the Pauline letters?  I'd guess not, but obviously some people think differently.

Except that when Paul was on one of his missionary journeys he came upon 12 brethren who claimed to have been baptized, but who knew nothing about the Holy Ghost (Acts 19:1-7). Because John always taught about receiving the Holy Ghost when baptizing people, Paul seems to have concluded that they hadn't been baptized authoritatively -- so he re-baptized them!  If those Pauline scriptures above really do mean that baptism isn't a requirement for salvation, why would Paul care two figs about whether these men had been baptized or not, and care at all who did it, and then for crying out loud do it over?  And if it isn't necessary for salvation, why the heck do it at all?  If it isn't necessary then baptism is a dead letter.

On the Day of Pentecost, Peter was preaching Jesus Christ to all those assembled, and the Spirit was poured out in abundance.  Those hearing Peter's words were converted and said "...unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?  Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." (Acts 2:37,38)  What?  Be baptized?  It's not a requirement for salvation, but that's the first thing Peter wants them to do after repenting?  

And finally, Paul himself.  After receiving a powerful vision of and conversing with the resurrected Lord, his eyes are blinded by the light.  He proceeds to his destination Damascus anyway, and lodges with a prominent Jewish leader, Judas, fasting for days.  The leader of the Christians at Damascus, Ananias, receives a command (Acts 9:10-18) from God.  "And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord in a vision, Ananias. And he said, Behold, I am here, Lord. And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and inquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he prayeth, And hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight. ... And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized."  So, baptism isn't necessary for salvation, but the first thing Paul does after being converted is get baptized?  Peculiar behavior, that. 

In the New Testament there are close to 200 instances of the word "baptism" in its various forms (including baptize, baptized and baptisms).  And in the entire book there is not one indication it might be optional and not a requirement!  Curious fact, isn't it, if baptism is not necessary for salvation?  Can you say the word "sophistry"?  And I can prove I am my own grandpa.

Either way, he certainly does not approve of the practice - In this rather long letter to the Corinthians Paul had enough time and space to explicate on a great number of things, but when it came to baptism for the dead, he felt comfortable using it to support the reality of the resurrection, but then didn't feel it important to add just a couple of words that actually indicated he didn't approve?  Or was Paul normally so tolerant of heresy that he wouldn't make an issue out of it?  I can suggest alternate wording for this, if you like: 

"Else what shall they do who practice the false doctrine of baptizing for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?"

How hard would that have been?  It's obvious Got Questions thinks it can read Paul's mind.

Got Questions says: "It is a mysterious passage, and there have been more than thirty different interpretations put forward."  Yep, mysterious all right.  Does anyone making those 30+ interpretations ever stop to think that the scripture means what it says?  No, of course not.  Because it couldn't possibly mean what it says.  Of course, Paul was well known for writing things that he didn't mean.  Right?

a person's eternal destiny, for that is determined while he lives - OK, fair enough that we shall all be reward for our acts, but what about our knowledge?  Does God condemn you for breaking the 10 commandments if you never heard of the 10 commandments?  Do you go to hell because you lived in Australia a thousand years before Christ was born and thus never had a chance to believe, because you never heard?  What about those people?  Are they condemned to hell because God put them where and when they had no chance to believe?  Doesn't that strike any of you who deny baptism for the dead as a trifle unjust?  Perhaps your own personal belief allows for something that the scriptures don't mention -- that God will treat these people specially, given their circumstances, and so eliminate the accusation of injustice?

Except that the scripture shows that God did make provision for those people who never heard of Christ in this life.  It's in the very New Testament that you mangle and shred trying to prove that Paul didn't really talk about baptizing for the dead.

So, first of all, what was Jesus doing between the time he died on the cross and ascended to his Father?  Remember that when he spoke to Mary Magdalene in the garden of Joseph of Arimathea, he admonished her not to touch him: "Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God." (John 20:17).  He rose in his resurrected body on the third day, so that means his spirit was disembodied until then.  When he spoke with Mary that day he hadn't yet ascended, but by the evening when he met his apostles he must have ascended, because he now permitted them to touch him. But what was he doing during that time if he hadn't already ascended to his Father?  Peter answers this:

"Who shall give account to him that is ready to judge the quick and the dead.  For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit. (1 Peter 4:5,6)"

"For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison (1 Peter 3:5,6)"

Now what would be the point of preaching to people who couldn't be baptized because they had no mortal body to get baptized?  I guess that if baptism is unnecessary, then what does that matter?

Except it DOES matter!  Christ proclaimed that it mattered, and was even baptized himself, because it mattered ("And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him. (Matt 3:15)."  Every time the apostles and their missionaries made converts they baptized them, and even re-baptized them if they thought they might not have been taught correctly, or been baptized authoritatively.  There is far more evidence in favor of baptism as a requirement than the opposite view.  And the evidence is sprinkled generously throughout the New Testament.  So what can we say about those who deny the necessity of baptism?  For either the living or the dead?  To be frank, such people are anti-Christ, because they deny that Christ's words are true.  And they are in the gall of iniquity, condemning the dead who never heard of Christ to hell, merely for the circumstances of their birth, which they had no control over.  

The DEAD are darned important. The scriptures say so.

Edited October 2, 2018 by Stargazer

[LittleNipper]

All of this sounds copacetic but there seems to be a contradiction between your premise concerning the logic of baptism of the dead and the story Jesus told of the rich man and the beggar Lazarus. 

Luke 16 New International Version (NIV) 

The Rich Man and Lazarus

¹⁹ “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. ²⁰ At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores ²¹ and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.

²² “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. ²³ In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. ²⁴ So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’

²⁵ “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. ²⁶ And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’

²⁷ “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, ²⁸ for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’

²⁹ “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’

³⁰ “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’

³¹ “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”

 The issue or problem presented in the story is that men have an opportunity to make up their minds with regard to their salvation while they are alive. The rich man was likely a Jew. There is no reason to imagine otherwise, as Jesus was speaking to Jews. This rich man had money and power enough to follow all the ritualism of Jewish tradition and yet ended up in hell.  There is no suggestion by Abraham that all that is needed is for someone to be baptized for this rich man and all would be made better... There is only the dire warning that the rich man's brothers would not accept a man risen from the dead if they didn't regard the writing of Moses and the Prophets. This logically is pointing to the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.

As for Jesus going to paradise and preaching (and I do believe even the rich man heard Jesus preach from across the great chasm), I'm reminded by the Holy Spirit through GOD's Holy Word that Noah also preached to those who would eventually be drowned and Lot went and preached of the coming judgement to his very sons-in-law but to no avail. Jesus preached that HE did what was prophesied HE would do and emptied out Paradise (where Abraham and Lazarus' spirits resided for a time) taking the pre-resurrection elect to heaven. By the elect, I mean only those who believed (had faith) that GOD alone would save them.

A point of the story is that one has only the opportunity of redemption while one remains alive and this only if one regards the teachings of the Bible as true and now accepts the Messiah as GOD --- not just a god --- but GOD meaning O-N-E with GOD the Father and GOD the Holy Spirit.

Edited October 5, 2018 by LittleNipper

[halconero]

I'm pretty sure the point of the story isn't that your chance is limited to this life. I'm pretty sure the point of the story is that being dead doesn't necessarily change someone from being an utter twat.

Thankfully, not everyone who had died is an utter twat.

I also see we're dovetailing into whether Homoousian God of the Greeks is the true God. I'm not sure how that's relevant to the original post, but I'll just nope right out of that one.

[LittleNipper]

21 hours ago, halconero said:

I'm pretty sure the point of the story isn't that your chance is limited to this life. I'm pretty sure the point of the story is that being dead doesn't necessarily change someone from being an utter twat.

Thankfully, not everyone who had died is an utter twat.

I also see we're dovetailing into whether Homoousian God of the Greeks is the true God. I'm not sure how that's relevant to the original post, but I'll just nope right out of that one.

Pretty sure is not ABSOLUTELY  positive... Aren't we all "twat"?  I mean the Bible says for ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of GOD. There is NONE that doeth good ---- no not one! I would imagine that once one ended up in hell, he'd totally realize that he /she made a big mistake. I believe they would change if they could. However, it would seem that one cannot change. One must be changed. 

Edited October 6, 2018 by LittleNipper

[Duncan]

7 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

Pretty sure is not ABSOLUTELY  positive... Aren't we all "twat"?  I mean the Bible says for ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of GOD. There is NONE that doeth good ----no not one!

which is why we need baptism to help us! and why God hasn't given up on us yet!!!

[halconero]

17 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

Pretty sure is not ABSOLUTELY  positive... Aren't we all "twat"?  I mean the Bible says for ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of GOD. There is NONE that doeth good ---- no not one! I would imagine that once one ended up in hell, he'd totally realize that he /she made a big mistake. I believe they would change if they could. However, it would seem that one cannot change. One must be changed. 

Some of us are more twats than others. Some respond to the call to repent. Others are intransigeant donkies.

The problem with your second part is that now you’re interpreting scripture in a way that changes the original meaning. Art thou a prophet with such a authority?

The original Greek (and yes, I read it) reads in such a way that Jesus words are clear: it’s not that these souls want to change, but cannot. It’s as Jesus said, they will not repent even if Moses or the other prophets were sent to them.

[LittleNipper]

12 minutes ago, Duncan said:

which is why we need baptism to help us! and why God hasn't given up on us yet!!!

But shouldn't the baptism that could affect anything be spiritual in nature? I mean in hell people are spirits --- are they not? How can your water baptism here have any influence on a relationship the departed should have had with GOD during his lifetime... His material existence is over. He is sealed according to the choices he made in his life. His spirit reflects how he lived without GOD.

Edited October 6, 2018 by LittleNipper

[Duncan]

17 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

But shouldn't the baptism that could affect anything be spiritual in nature? I mean in hell people are spirits --- are they not? How can your water baptism here have any influence on a relationship the departed should have had with GOD during his lifetime... His material existence is over. He is sealed according to the choices he made in his life. His spirit reflects how he lived without GOD.

if they choose it though, as President Nelson said, we do the work they do the choosing

[3DOP]

4 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

But shouldn't the baptism that could affect anything be spiritual in nature? I mean in hell people are spirits --- are they not? How can your water baptism here have any influence on a relationship the departed should have had with GOD during his lifetime... His material existence is over. He is sealed according to the choices he made in his life. His spirit reflects how he lived without GOD.

Little Nipper,

I hold to a uniquely Catholic interpretation of baptism for the dead, as mentioned by St. Paul in I Cor. 15:29. I suppose I have written it out here five or six times over the years and I will repeat it if you are interested. There were many other influences, but LDS logic on this and a few other topics helped push me to Rome in 1995. That is why I have participated here. I believe Salt Lake can lead a Protestant to Rome. That is why I defend Mormonism to you, an Evangelical, even though in most respects, you resemble what I believe more than my Mormon friends here.

What do YOU do with I Cor 15:29?

Also, in hell as in heaven, both Catholics and Mormons believe that "people" will be corporeal. 

[LittleNipper]

8 hours ago, Duncan said:

if they choose it though, as President Nelson said, we do the work they do the choosing

So it is not "Finished!" as according to Christ on the cross? One must still WORK in order to be saved or perform a WORK in order to salvage the choices/mistakes of others? 

I believe the following interpretation is best and also reflex that this peculiar behavior was occurring only in Corinth and Paul was utilize their peculiar ritualism to drive home the reality that the saints would be raised from the dead as follows:

Near the middle of his great reflection on the resurrection, the apostle Paul pauses to ask his readers: “What do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf” (1 Cor. 15:29)? The verse could also be translated: “Why do those who are baptized for the dead do it? That is, if the dead are not raised at all, why are they (certain Corinthians) baptized for the dead?”

The phrase “baptism for the dead” is so obscure and perplexing, the meaning so uncertain, and the variety of interpretations so numerous that it seems wise to say it may seem impossible to know what the phrase means. Given the difficulties, some wonder why we should bother to investigate. However, baptism for the dead matters, both because Mormons place extraordinary importance upon it, and also because Paul applies it towards the eventual resurrection of believers.

The simplest reading of the text is that some Corinthian Christians were baptized vicariously on behalf of some who’d already died, seeking a spiritual benefit. The problem with such a view is twofold. First, there is no precedent for baptism for the dead either by John or Jesus, the early Church, or among pagan religions. No one knows who did it or what spiritual benefit they sought. Second, the notion of Christians being baptizing for the sake of those who’ve died offends Christian theology. It sounds like a magical sacramentalism. It contradicts justification by faith alone.

To avoid these problems, some scholars have proposed that Paul’s key terms have rare or figurative meanings. First, they say “baptism” is metaphorical, as in Peter’s expression “baptism with fire.” Second, they say “for” does not mean “on behalf of.” Third, they say “the dead” are the spiritually dead or the dying, not the physically dead. Yet the text gives us no reason to seek metaphorical meanings. All background of scholars agree that plain sense is most likely, though no one knows precisely what the Corinthians did.

The question resembles discussions of the authorship of the Book of Hebrews. So many scholars have worked on the matter that someone, surely, has proposed the right author. But since we suffer ignorance at key points, we are forced to make guesses.

Even if a scholar surmises correctly, he still surmises; whoever is right cannot be positive. Still, even if certainty eludes us, we can learn important things. We may never know the name of Hebrews’ author, but we do know the kind of person he was. Likewise, we may never know precisely why Corinthians were baptized for the dead, however, one can realize that the Mormon view is in error.

Two principles must guide us. First, we establish what we know as a foundation and work from there. Second, our conclusions must fit the context of 1 Corinthians and cohere with Paul’s theology.

Beginning with the context, Paul has heard some Corinthian Christians deny the future bodily resurrection of believers. Given how integral Jesus’s resurrection is to the gospel, the apostle responds, “How can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead?” (15:1–12). In light of the union of Christ with believers, if anyone denies the resurrection of Christians, he must also deny the resurrection of Christ.

If dead Christians aren’t raised, then neither is Christ. And if Christ isn’t raised, Paul’s gospel is false, our faith is worthless, and we’re still lost in sin. But, Paul continues, Christ has been raised—so that all who are united to him have resurrection life. He was raised as the firstfruits of the dead (15:12–28).

With this, Paul’s theological argument for the resurrection of believers ends. The next section, beginning with our verse, adds a series of arguments for the resurrection. Paul’s theme is that both his and the Corinthians’ practice are consistent with a belief in the resurrection of the dead. The significance of Paul’s practice is clear: If there’s no resurrection, he asks, why does he face danger continuously? Why should he risk death daily? There is no logic to such sacrifices without the resurrection. In fact, it would be better to “eat and drink for tomorrow we die” (15:30–32).

Two conclusions emerge. First, just as Paul’s sacrifices presuppose the resurrection, so the Corinthians’ practice of baptism for the dead presupposes the resurrection. Second, since 1 Corinthians 15 is about resurrection of the dead and not gaining salvation, Mormons are taking the passage out of context.

Additionally, since Paul doesn’t rebuke the Corinthians for their practice, then their baptism for the dead was harmless or, at worst, a minor offense. If baptism for the dead actually perverted the gospel, he would have denounced it, as he condemns other sins in the letter.

Whatever baptism for the dead means, the practice as performed  by Mormons is contradictory, for it disregards the biblical context while undermining the biblical gospel. Mormon baptism is a proxy administration of immersion for a deceased individual who didn't hear the "Mormon" gospel while alive.

Joseph Smith initiated the practice in 1840 in response to concern among his followers for forebears who died unbaptized. Today, these baptisms are also performed as an act of love for unrelated persons selected from genealogical records in Mormon archives.

Like some Christians, Mormons wonder about the fate of those who died before the time of Christ. Whereas Christians wonder about those who miss the gospel of his atonement, Mormons fear missing his teachings on the way of righteous living.

Still, the question of the proper interpretation of baptism for the dead remains. Confessing I’m no closer to certainty than anyone, I think it wise to take the passage at face value: it seems that certain Corinthian were baptized on behalf of people—possibly family members or friends who’d died.

Paul knew about this and, even if he didn’t fully approve, his casual tone shows it wasn’t a major issue. The best guess, then, is not that they thought baptism played a role in saving the dead, which would be a major error, but that they exaggerated the value of baptism.

It seems likely the Corinthians were concerned about believers who died before they could be baptized, and feared some spiritual loss as a result. This view suits the context and coheres with other Scriptures, which show Paul as a lion when he detecting any challenge to the gospel itself.

 

Edited October 6, 2018 by LittleNipper

[LittleNipper]

It must be understood that I believe that it's the indwelling or baptism of the HOLY SPIRIT that saves, and not water immersion. Immersion is an outward illustration of what the HOLY SPIRIT does internally and is performed as a sign to the community that one has accepted Jesus the Messiah as their personal Savior. In ancient times, this would be like hanging a bull's eye on one's back. It was a public declaration that one was a CHRISTIAN --- a very dangerous thing back then and is so today in many places... One's soul is married to GOD through faith in Christ and the indwelling of the HOLY SPIRIT which is that still small voice that enlightens the saved individual as he both reads GOD's Word and continues in being a witness for Christ to the world. It is a growing process that climaxes at the moment of death of that Christian. 

[3DOP]

1 hour ago, LittleNipper said:

It must be understood that I believe that it's the indwelling or baptism of the HOLY SPIRIT that saves, and not water immersion. Immersion is an outward illustration of what the HOLY SPIRIT does internally and is performed as a sign to the community that one has accepted Jesus the Messiah as their personal Savior. In ancient times, this would be like hanging a bull's eye on one's back. It was a public declaration that one was a CHRISTIAN --- a very dangerous thing back then and is so today in many places... One's soul is married to GOD through faith in Christ and the indwelling of the HOLY SPIRIT which is that still small voice that enlightens the saved individual as he both reads GOD's Word and continues in being a witness for Christ to the world. It is a growing process that climaxes at the moment of death of that Christian. 

Keeping what you believe about baptism in mind, how do you understand I Cor. 15:29? You need a persuasive interpretation that demonstrates that the Apostle Paul wasn't speaking of some form of benefit for the dead. This might make Mormons and Catholics less confident that we are obeying God when we offer certain works, rites, or ordinances for the dead. The full answer to the question of your thread is answered by 1 Cor. 15:29. How do we get around the idea that "baptism for the dead", whether it be a symbol or something more in I Cor. 15:29, is a commendable practice? It doesn't seem very likely to Mormons that the apostle, inspired by the Holy Ghost, would need to use a false principle (good works or rites for the dead), to illustrate a true teaching (the Bodily Resurrection). 

As a Catholic, I agree with Mormons entirely. In the early 17th Century, a doctor of the Catholic Church, St. Francis de Sales, uses I Cor. 15:29, and baptism for the dead against the claims of Martin Luther. Luther's rash, reactionary dismissal of all forms of indulgences led him to positions that could not accommodate any "baptisms for the dead" as being commendable, and Luther's children have not found a solution to the problem.

Edited October 6, 2018 by 3DOP

[halconero]

12 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

But shouldn't the baptism that could affect anything be spiritual in nature? I mean in hell people are spirits --- are they not? How can your water baptism here have any influence on a relationship the departed should have had with GOD during his lifetime... His material existence is over. He is sealed according to the choices he made in his life. His spirit reflects how he lived without GOD.

Why then are they baptized for the dead, Little Dipper? If the spirit’s material existenc is over, why then are they baptized for them?

Edited October 6, 2018 by halconero

[halconero]

2 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

It must be understood that I believe that it's the indwelling or baptism of the HOLY SPIRIT that saves, and not water immersion. Immersion is an outward illustration of what the HOLY SPIRIT does internally and is performed as a sign to the community that one has accepted Jesus the Messiah as their personal Savior. In ancient times, this would be like hanging a bull's eye on one's back. It was a public declaration that one was a CHRISTIAN --- a very dangerous thing back then and is so today in many places... One's soul is married to GOD through faith in Christ and the indwelling of the HOLY SPIRIT which is that still small voice that enlightens the saved individual as he both reads GOD's Word and continues in being a witness for Christ to the world. It is a growing process that climaxes at the moment of death of that Christian. 

Post-reformation poppycock.

 

4 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

So it is not "Finished!" as according to Christ on the cross? One must still WORK in order to be saved or perform a WORK in order to salvage the choices/mistakes of others? 

I believe the following interpretation is best and also reflex that this peculiar behavior was occurring only in Corinth and Paul was utilize their peculiar ritualism to drive home the reality that the saints would be raised from the dead as follows:

Near the middle of his great reflection on the resurrection, the apostle Paul pauses to ask his readers: “What do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf” (1 Cor. 15:29)? The verse could also be translated: “Why do those who are baptized for the dead do it? That is, if the dead are not raised at all, why are they (certain Corinthians) baptized for the dead?”

The phrase “baptism for the dead” is so obscure and perplexing, the meaning so uncertain, and the variety of interpretations so numerous that it seems wise to say it may seem impossible to know what the phrase means. Given the difficulties, some wonder why we should bother to investigate. However, baptism for the dead matters, both because Mormons place extraordinary importance upon it, and also because Paul applies it towards the eventual resurrection of believers.

The simplest reading of the text is that some Corinthian Christians were baptized vicariously on behalf of some who’d already died, seeking a spiritual benefit. The problem with such a view is twofold. First, there is no precedent for baptism for the dead either by John or Jesus, the early Church, or among pagan religions. No one knows who did it or what spiritual benefit they sought. Second, the notion of Christians being baptizing for the sake of those who’ve died offends Christian theology. It sounds like a magical sacramentalism. It contradicts justification by faith alone.

To avoid these problems, some scholars have proposed that Paul’s key terms have rare or figurative meanings. First, they say “baptism” is metaphorical, as in Peter’s expression “baptism with fire.” Second, they say “for” does not mean “on behalf of.” Third, they say “the dead” are the spiritually dead or the dying, not the physically dead. Yet the text gives us no reason to seek metaphorical meanings. All background of scholars agree that plain sense is most likely, though no one knows precisely what the Corinthians did.

The question resembles discussions of the authorship of the Book of Hebrews. So many scholars have worked on the matter that someone, surely, has proposed the right author. But since we suffer ignorance at key points, we are forced to make guesses.

Even if a scholar surmises correctly, he still surmises; whoever is right cannot be positive. Still, even if certainty eludes us, we can learn important things. We may never know the name of Hebrews’ author, but we do know the kind of person he was. Likewise, we may never know precisely why Corinthians were baptized for the dead, however, one can realize that the Mormon view is in error.

Two principles must guide us. First, we establish what we know as a foundation and work from there. Second, our conclusions must fit the context of 1 Corinthians and cohere with Paul’s theology.

Beginning with the context, Paul has heard some Corinthian Christians deny the future bodily resurrection of believers. Given how integral Jesus’s resurrection is to the gospel, the apostle responds, “How can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead?” (15:1–12). In light of the union of Christ with believers, if anyone denies the resurrection of Christians, he must also deny the resurrection of Christ.

If dead Christians aren’t raised, then neither is Christ. And if Christ isn’t raised, Paul’s gospel is false, our faith is worthless, and we’re still lost in sin. But, Paul continues, Christ has been raised—so that all who are united to him have resurrection life. He was raised as the firstfruits of the dead (15:12–28).

With this, Paul’s theological argument for the resurrection of believers ends. The next section, beginning with our verse, adds a series of arguments for the resurrection. Paul’s theme is that both his and the Corinthians’ practice are consistent with a belief in the resurrection of the dead. The significance of Paul’s practice is clear: If there’s no resurrection, he asks, why does he face danger continuously? Why should he risk death daily? There is no logic to such sacrifices without the resurrection. In fact, it would be better to “eat and drink for tomorrow we die” (15:30–32).

Two conclusions emerge. First, just as Paul’s sacrifices presuppose the resurrection, so the Corinthians’ practice of baptism for the dead presupposes the resurrection. Second, since 1 Corinthians 15 is about resurrection of the dead and not gaining salvation, Mormons are taking the passage out of context.

Additionally, since Paul doesn’t rebuke the Corinthians for their practice, then their baptism for the dead was harmless or, at worst, a minor offense. If baptism for the dead actually perverted the gospel, he would have denounced it, as he condemns other sins in the letter.

Whatever baptism for the dead means, the practice as performed  by Mormons is contradictory, for it disregards the biblical context while undermining the biblical gospel. Mormon baptism is a proxy administration of immersion for a deceased individual who didn't hear the "Mormon" gospel while alive.

Joseph Smith initiated the practice in 1840 in response to concern among his followers for forebears who died unbaptized. Today, these baptisms are also performed as an act of love for unrelated persons selected from genealogical records in Mormon archives.

Like some Christians, Mormons wonder about the fate of those who died before the time of Christ. Whereas Christians wonder about those who miss the gospel of his atonement, Mormons fear missing his teachings on the way of righteous living.

Still, the question of the proper interpretation of baptism for the dead remains. Confessing I’m no closer to certainty than anyone, I think it wise to take the passage at face value: it seems that certain Corinthian were baptized on behalf of people—possibly family members or friends who’d died.

Paul knew about this and, even if he didn’t fully approve, his casual tone shows it wasn’t a major issue. The best guess, then, is not that they thought baptism played a role in saving the dead, which would be a major error, but that they exaggerated the value of baptism.

It seems likely the Corinthians were concerned about believers who died before they could be baptized, and feared some spiritual loss as a result. This view suits the context and coheres with other Scriptures, which show Paul as a lion when he detecting any challenge to the gospel itself.

 

Not only Corinthians, but major parts of the Church in Asia Minor, along the Euphrates, and Africa. The practice lasted long into the 4th century.

[halconero]

I think we’ve come to the crux of the issue:

You don’t think baptism is necessary for salvation.

Interestingly, whenever I’ve seen vigorous opposition to baptism for the dead, the conversation eventually devolves into a discussion on the necessity of baptism itself.

If baptism is necessary for salvation, then the unbaptized dead are indeed lost, lest they be provided some means to receive baptism.

If it is unecessary, as you posit, then the practice is at best misdirected, or at worst, a false doctrine.

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Keeping what you believe about baptism in mind, how do you understand I Cor. 15:29? You need a persuasive interpretation that demonstrates that the Apostle Paul wasn't speaking of some form of benefit for the dead. This might make Mormons and Catholics less confident that we are obeying God when we offer certain works, rites, or ordinances for the dead. The full answer to the question of your thread is answered by 1 Cor. 15:29. How do we get around the idea that "baptism for the dead", whether it be a symbol or something more in I Cor. 15:29, is a commendable practice? It doesn't seem very likely to Mormons that the apostle, inspired by the Holy Ghost, would need to use a false principle (good works or rites for the dead), to illustrate a true teaching (the Bodily Resurrection). 

As a Catholic, I agree with Mormons entirely. In the early 17th Century, a doctor of the Catholic Church, St. Francis de Sales, uses I Cor. 15:29, and baptism for the dead against the claims of Martin Luther. Luther's rash, reactionary dismissal of all forms of indulgences led him to positions that could not accommodate any "baptisms for the dead" as being commendable, and Luther's children have not found a solution to the problem.

This is so true Rory. The fairest reading of that section shows Paul was giving every evidence He could that Yeshua was resurrected. Concluding as Protestants have, that Paul was using a pagan practice to support his argument is not fundamentally sound. Nor is there any direct evidence for it. History does reveal that there was a pagan sect which washed themselves in the sea as part of their initiation rite. However, I have never seen any evidence that they did this for their dead. I have a strong testimony that only the Church of Jesus Christ has this ordinance, because Satan fights it hard so that he won't lose many souls to Christ. There are essentially no other churches which perform baptisms for the dead in this modern day.

If you wish for a baptism to be done for an ancestor, you basically have to give their name to the Church of Jesus Christ or join up so you can do it yourself  

Edited October 6, 2018 by RevTestament
Post was lost

[MiserereNobis]

3 minutes ago, Anon the Great said:

But the Satanic moles that worship Lucifer

[halconero]

42 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

This is so true Rory. The fairest reading of that section shows Paul was giving every evidence He could that Yeshua was resurrected. Concluding as Protestants have, that Paul was using a pagan practice to support his argument is not fundamentally sound. Nor is there any direct evidence for it. History does reveal that there was a pagan sect which washed themselves in the sea as part of their initiation rite. However, I have never seen any evidence that they did this for their dead. I have a strong testimony that only the Church of Jesus Christ has this ordinance, because Satan fights it hard so that he won't lose many souls to Christ. There are essentially no other churches which perform baptisms for the dead in this modern day.

If you wish for a baptism to be done for an ancestor, you basically have to give their name to the Church of Jesus Christ or join up so you can do it yourself  

There is also plenty of evidence for vicarious baptism among Christian and Abrahamic groups (thinking of the Nasoreans specifically) in antiquity.

[RevTestament]

9 minutes ago, halconero said:

There is also plenty of evidence for vicarious baptism among Christian and Abrahamic groups (thinking of the Nasoreans specifically) in antiquity.

If you have a list of ancient sources, I would be very interested. Citing Tvedtnes doesn't do a lot of good without the sources themselves. I know of only one or two from early Christian sources, but obviously it was a significant practice for two Roman Church councils to speak to the subject and outlaw it. What did the Nasoreans do? 

Thanks in advance.

[halconero]

35 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

If you have a list of ancient sources, I would be very interested. Citing Tvedtnes doesn't do a lot of good without the sources themselves. I know of only one or two from early Christian sources, but obviously it was a significant practice for two Roman Church councils to speak to the subject and outlaw it. What did the Nasoreans do? 

Thanks in advance.

The Marcionites and the Corinthian Church are two attested examples. The Nasoreans actually still exist today. They’re called Mandaeans, and were largely based long the Euphrates before most became refugees after the 2003 Invasion.

They practice vicarious baptism for the dead. They also initiate people into the priesthood via a creation drama demonstrating how a Cosmic Father and Cosmic Mother prepared the world for a King-Priest Adam. The initiate is supposed to consider themselves following in the steps of Adam.

I’m not home at the moment, or would provide more examples and sources.

[LittleNipper]

Numerous explanations have been offered for this verse, ranging from the inane to the sophisticated. 

In verses 1-19, the fact of Christ's resurrection is detailed by Paul. Beginning in verse 20 and going through verse 23, Paul speaks about the order of the resurrection. Christ was the first one raised - in a glorified body - and next will be those who are His at His return. Verses 24 - 29 then mention Christ's reign and the abolition of death. This is when this controversial verse occurs: "Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?"

Just north of Corinth was a city named Eleusis. This was the location of a pagan religion where baptism in the sea was practiced to guarantee a good afterlife. This religion was mentioned by Homer in Hymn to Demeter 478-79. Bible Knowledge Commentary on 1 Cor. 15:29 The Corinthians were known to be heavily influenced by other customs. After all, they were in a large economic area where a great many different people frequented. It is probable that the Corinthians were being influenced by the religious practices found at Eleusis where baptism for the dead was practiced.

Paul used this example from the pagans in 1 Cor. 15:29, when he said, "...if the dead are not raised, then why are they baptized for the dead?" Paul did not say we.1

This is significant because the Christian church was not practicing baptism for the dead, but the pagans were.

Paul's point was simple. The resurrection is a reality. It is going to happen when Jesus returns. Even the pagans believe in the resurrection, otherwise, why would they baptize for the dead?

However, some are not convinced by this argument and state that the word "they" is not in the Greek and, therefore, Paul is not speaking about the pagans.  Let's take a look.

Literally, the verse is translated as "Since what will do the being immersed on behalf of the dead if wholly dead not are raised why also are they immersed on behalf of them."

The issue here is the word, "baptizontai" -- "they are baptized."  It is the present, passive, indicative, 3rd person, plural. In other words, it is THEY ARE BEING BAPTIZED or, THEY ARE BAPTIZED.

I - first person singular
you (singular) - second person singular
he/she/it - third person singular
we - first person plural
you (plural) - second person plural
they - third person plural

It is the latter form, the third person plural (they) in which the verb "baptizo" is found. Therefore, the best translation is "THEY are baptized." Clearly Paul was not being baptized for the dead!  And yet if the practice was valuable or viable shouldn't he practice what Mormons profess Paul was preaching? Is it difficult to be dunked for dead people any more than taking a bath or a dip in the ocean ---- for an Apostle?!?!?!?!

THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME PAUL APPLIED SUCH A TACTIC! HE called pagans religious --- and suggested that they already worship GOD!!!

 Acts 17: 22: “Then Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, “Men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are very religious; 23 for as I was passing through and considering the objects of your worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you: 24 God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. 25 Nor is He worshiped with men's hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things. 26 And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their pre-appointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, 27 so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28 for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, 'For we are also His offspring.' 29 “Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man's devising. 30 Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, 31 because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.”

Does this in truth mean that Paul ever thought of them as ALREADY SAVED? Heaven forbid -- absolutely not! Otherwise, why would he continue with his train of logic? Paul is working with what he perceived to bring understanding to those people where they are at, and hopefully turn the light-switch on to their very souls. And it worked for a few.

Edited October 8, 2018 by LittleNipper

[Anakin7]

 Thank you for your response viewpoint. There are dozens of interpretations of that verse from different Houses in the Mansion of Christiandom. 

The Atonement It Is the Central Doctrine

Washing My Garment/Robe In His Blood

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS, Saint, Christian, Sentinel, Son Of Thunder, Kryptonian, Warrior

[LittleNipper]

26 minutes ago, Anakin7 said:

 Thank you for your response viewpoint. There are dozens of interpretations of that verse from different Houses in the Mansion of Christiandom. 

The Atonement It Is the Central Doctrine

Washing My Garment/Robe In His Blood

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS, Saint, Christian, Sentinel, Son Of Thunder, Kryptonian, Warrior

While I do believe it is the responsibility of Christians to witness to the unsaved (THE GREAT COMMISSION) --- one can lead a horse to water, but GOD never intended His elect to make them drink. Christians need to see that their own houses are in order and witness to neighbors of Christ's death, burial and resurrection, and to those GOD sends their way. the dead are dead, either in Christ and in heaven or in hell and awaiting their judgement. 

[Anakin7]

    Thank you for sharing that.Your Calvinistic christian neighbor will tell you its all predestined as is with your next response/reply. Have a True Grace Empowered day.

The Atonement It Is The Central Doctrine 

Washing My Garment/robe In His Blood

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

Anakin7

Was