- Feb 18, 2002
- 902
- 5
- Faith
- Marital Status
- Engaged
Baptism for the dead was a practice of the pagan Eleusians who happened to live near the Corinthians.
Paul was talking about their practice; and he thought that it showed that 'even the pagans' believed in resurrection or why would they baptize their dead.
"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 mention 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." - CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS AND RESEARCH MINISTRY
Looking at the context of a long series of arguments for accepting resurrection, it would seem clear that this is simply yet another of these ... it would clearly not make sense to be baptised for the dead if they were never going to be resurrected...
But that is all that it is, for there is no other reference to the idea of baptism for the dead in the bible at all...
When one considers that baptism marks the turning of a person toward seeking only to do love in their life, clearly no-one else can do this for a person.... but one could suppose that a person might conceivably die after expressing the wish to go through formal water baptism and someone else could take it upon themselves to affirm that wish by proceeding with the formality in their staed as an affirmation of the frustrated desire...
to me this would still seem very strange and there is no biblical support for such a procedure beside this one oblique apparent reference that does not even affirm the procedure,but only use it as an indication of an implicit faith in resurrection ....
However , the Mormons, for instance, believe it is enough indication to have instigated extensive baptisms for the dead, even ,interestingly ,for those who died without expressing any faith at all...
Simply realising that water baptism is a pre-cursor to the baptism that actually saves by bringing man to the truth of God through the spirit of truth [holy ghost, Comforter] shows very clearly however that there is no role for this additional formal procedure in the process of salvation as described by Jesus... the dead shall indeed all be resurrected and there is none who will not come to Christ [whether before or after death and resurrection] :-
Phi 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
Phi 2:11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Rev 5:13 And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.
Thus baptism for the dead is not necessary, but equally there is not much harm that I can see in expressing in this way one's hope/faith in the salvation of those that have died even if it seems a little more than weird [to me ] to get baptised as though you could for someone else when clearly you can't really [still less receive the spirit for a dead person
One might ask perhaps that if substitutionary baptism "seems a little more than weird" then is not substitutionary atonement and salvation but :-
God as creator has the right to take upon himself through Jesus Christ ALL responsibility for sin of His creation, this is not really substitution so musch as simple justice, God REALLY is responsible for creating the way things are and evil is no accident ... the Word was with God from the beginning as the total resolution of evil in the end through Jesus Christ .... does it not seem even 'reasonable' that the maker should take all responsibility on Himself rather than say blaming the principalities or pawns He created ?
Paul was talking about their practice; and he thought that it showed that 'even the pagans' believed in resurrection or why would they baptize their dead.
"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 mention 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." - CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS AND RESEARCH MINISTRY
Looking at the context of a long series of arguments for accepting resurrection, it would seem clear that this is simply yet another of these ... it would clearly not make sense to be baptised for the dead if they were never going to be resurrected...
But that is all that it is, for there is no other reference to the idea of baptism for the dead in the bible at all...
When one considers that baptism marks the turning of a person toward seeking only to do love in their life, clearly no-one else can do this for a person.... but one could suppose that a person might conceivably die after expressing the wish to go through formal water baptism and someone else could take it upon themselves to affirm that wish by proceeding with the formality in their staed as an affirmation of the frustrated desire...
to me this would still seem very strange and there is no biblical support for such a procedure beside this one oblique apparent reference that does not even affirm the procedure,but only use it as an indication of an implicit faith in resurrection ....
However , the Mormons, for instance, believe it is enough indication to have instigated extensive baptisms for the dead, even ,interestingly ,for those who died without expressing any faith at all...
Simply realising that water baptism is a pre-cursor to the baptism that actually saves by bringing man to the truth of God through the spirit of truth [holy ghost, Comforter] shows very clearly however that there is no role for this additional formal procedure in the process of salvation as described by Jesus... the dead shall indeed all be resurrected and there is none who will not come to Christ [whether before or after death and resurrection] :-
Phi 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
Phi 2:11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Rev 5:13 And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.
Thus baptism for the dead is not necessary, but equally there is not much harm that I can see in expressing in this way one's hope/faith in the salvation of those that have died even if it seems a little more than weird [to me ] to get baptised as though you could for someone else when clearly you can't really [still less receive the spirit for a dead person
One might ask perhaps that if substitutionary baptism "seems a little more than weird" then is not substitutionary atonement and salvation but :-
God as creator has the right to take upon himself through Jesus Christ ALL responsibility for sin of His creation, this is not really substitution so musch as simple justice, God REALLY is responsible for creating the way things are and evil is no accident ... the Word was with God from the beginning as the total resolution of evil in the end through Jesus Christ .... does it not seem even 'reasonable' that the maker should take all responsibility on Himself rather than say blaming the principalities or pawns He created ?
