LDS LDS: Proxy Baptism -- Basis in the Bible.

[drstevej]

"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?" (1 Cor. 15:29, NASB)

How do Mormons respond to this analysis of Mormon mishandling of this text to build their proxy (vicarious) baptism practices? Is there any NT justification other than twisting this text?

https://carm.org/baptism-for-the-dead-in-1-corinthians-15-29

Numerous explanations have been offered for this verse, ranging from the inane to the sophisticated. Mormonism (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), in particular, has claimed that this verse supports their view of baptism for the dead. In their practice, individuals go to their local Mormon temple, dress appropriately for a baptism, representatively adopt the name of a person who has died, and then the Mormon is baptized in water for that deceased person. This way, the dead person has fulfilled the requirements of salvation in the afterworld and can enjoy further spiritual benefits in the spiritual realm.

But, the Mormons are incorrect. They have usurped this verse and taken it out of context. So, let's examine 1 Cor. 15 briefly, so we can see what Paul is talking about when he mentions baptism for the dead.

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 478-79.1 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.2

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."​

 

[fatboys]

"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?" (1 Cor. 15:29, NASB)

How do Mormons respond to this analysis of Mormon mishandling of this text to build their proxy (vicarious) baptism practices? Is there any NT justification other than twisting this text?

https://carm.org/baptism-for-the-dead-in-1-corinthians-15-29

Numerous explanations have been offered for this verse, ranging from the inane to the sophisticated. Mormonism (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), in particular, has claimed that this verse supports their view of baptism for the dead. In their practice, individuals go to their local Mormon temple, dress appropriately for a baptism, representatively adopt the name of a person who has died, and then the Mormon is baptized in water for that deceased person. This way, the dead person has fulfilled the requirements of salvation in the afterworld and can enjoy further spiritual benefits in the spiritual realm.

But, the Mormons are incorrect. They have usurped this verse and taken it out of context. So, let's examine 1 Cor. 15 briefly, so we can see what Paul is talking about when he mentions baptism for the dead.

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 478-79.1 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.2

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."​

Your kidding. How many times has this been explained to you.

 

[Hammster]

It's not been explained to me.

 

[Ironhold]

It's not been explained to me.

Have some Hugh Nibley.

Should solve that one right quick.

 

[Hammster]

I don't generally read links. That's not a conversation.

 

[Ironhold]

I don't generally read links. That's not a conversation.

You wanted information, correct?

That's a full-fledged academic paper proposing that the practice was not just known, but more widely practiced than previously believed.

 

[Hammster]

Okay.

 

[Hammster]

I didn't know that "google it" was an appropriate response in these threads.

 

[Ironhold]

I didn't know that "google it" was an appropriate response in these threads.

We're not telling you to "Google it".

We're saying "Here's an academic paper that should have most of what you're wanting to know."

 

[Hammster]

I could have googled it. Same as you could google infant baptism, yet you started a discussion.

 

[Ironhold]

I could have googled it. Same as you could google infant baptism, yet you started a discussion.

I started a discussion because in the 15 years I've been online, I've never once gotten a straight answer.

 

[Hammster]

But that doesn't mean you couldn't google it. I'm not saying you should, as this is a discussion forum.

 

[ewq1938]

You wanted information, correct?

That's a full-fledged academic paper proposing that the practice was not just known, but more widely practiced than previously believed.

That does not make it something God has said should be done. The OP makes a clear and valid point about this. If you disagree you should either dispute it in your own words, or quote the part/parts of that academic paper that offers a counter. That it was popular is not countering the information in the OP.

 

[Ironhold]

That does not make it something God has said should be done. The OP makes a clear and valid point about this. If you disagree you should either dispute it in your own words, or quote the part/parts of that academic paper that offers a counter. That it was popular is not countering the information in the OP.

The point still stands though that it was not as isolated or "strange" a practice as critics of the church would have people believe, and that it was accepted by more of the early Christian church than some folks are comfortable with.

 

[ewq1938]

The point still stands though that it was not as isolated or "strange" a practice as critics of the church would have people believe, and that it was accepted by more of the early Christian church than some folks are comfortable with.

That's a red herring. It doesn't matter if it was practiced or accepted....it isn't scriptural and the OP proved that the verses in question is being misunderstood and misused by Mormons. You have to defend the practice via scripture not via "people did it and accepted it".

 

[fatboys]

That's a red herring. It doesn't matter if it was practiced or accepted....it isn't scriptural and the OP proved that the verses in question is being misunderstood and misused by Mormons. You have to defend the practice via scripture not via "people did it and accepted it".

Did Paul condemn the practice? No. He was teaching them a lesson on the resurrection and asking why do baptisms for the dead if the dead don't rise.

 

[ewq1938]

Did Paul condemn the practice? No. He was teaching them a lesson on the resurrection and asking why do baptisms for the dead if the dead don't rise.

The only valid baptism for the dead is being baptised for Christ, because he died and was resurrected. Being baptised for someone else other than Christ is not taught in scripture.

Rom_6:3-5 : Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead, even so we also should walk in newness of life: for, if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in his resurrection.

 

[withwonderingawe]

I should think one would have to first believe baptism was a necessary ordinance to enter into the New and Everlasting Covenant before one would accept baptism of the dead.

 

[Truthseeker1971]

"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?" (1 Cor. 15:29, NASB)

How do Mormons respond to this analysis of Mormon mishandling of this text to build their proxy (vicarious) baptism practices? Is there any NT justification other than twisting this text?

https://carm.org/baptism-for-the-dead-in-1-corinthians-15-29

Numerous explanations have been offered for this verse, ranging from the inane to the sophisticated. Mormonism (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), in particular, has claimed that this verse supports their view of baptism for the dead. In their practice, individuals go to their local Mormon temple, dress appropriately for a baptism, representatively adopt the name of a person who has died, and then the Mormon is baptized in water for that deceased person. This way, the dead person has fulfilled the requirements of salvation in the afterworld and can enjoy further spiritual benefits in the spiritual realm.

But, the Mormons are incorrect. They have usurped this verse and taken it out of context. So, let's examine 1 Cor. 15 briefly, so we can see what Paul is talking about when he mentions baptism for the dead.

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 478-79.1 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.2

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."​

You got it right on, brother.
Baptised for the dead here means being baptised in Jesus Christ, He who was dead and is risen again. The question was, what is the point is being baptised for the dead (Jesus) if Jesus is still dead?

The moment you die, you go straight to your judgment. There is no second chance for you, if you are unsaved for you have only this life to be saved and there is no forgiveness after death

Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

 

[fatboys]

You got it right on, brother.
Baptised for the dead here means being baptised in Jesus Christ, He who was dead and is risen again. The question was, what is the point is being baptised for the dead (Jesus) if Jesus is still dead?

The moment you die, you go straight to your judgment. There is no second chance for you, if you are unsaved for you have only this life to be saved and there is no forgiveness after death

Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

You know what gets me is that you can beleive that Joseph Smith pulled baptism for the dead out of his something or other. A doctrine that was so foreign to modern Christianity. From one verse in the bible build a whole doctrine that included the endowment as well. Belief in a pre existence or God Has Glorified body of flesh and bones or the importance of the priesthood or apostles and prophets or the Book of Mormon or the doctrine and covenants or we were all brothers and sisters in the pre existence and on and on and on. And now ancient discoveries of ancient writings confirm every teaching brought about by the restoration. Writings that Joseph Smith never had access to. If you guys want to cling to the bible and beliefs that have been watered down and made to fit mans own mortal ideas of God then have at it. For me God has revealed much more to man and I want to take advantage of that knowledge.