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

ewq1938 said:

No one can definitively say that nothing of the NT was yet written. Obviously there was at least the book of Timothy because that statement is written in that book.

Click to expand...

These were letters written to Timothy. The only writings that had been written was possibly the gospel according to Mark.

fatboys said:

These were letters written to Timothy. The only writings that had been written was possibly the gospel according to Mark.

Click to expand...

2 Timothy was his last letter. That means there were 12 others from Paul that were in existence.

fatboys said:

Since the New Testament didn't exist when this was written which scripture do you think he was referring to?

Click to expand...

The Old Testament and the gospels which were just beginning to circulate at that time.
All of the New Testament, regardless of whether or not it had been committed to paper by that time, is only an extension of the Old.

And by the time Revelation was written around AD 90 or so, the canon was closes and prophecy ended.
Revelation 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

Revelation 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book.

What is the book of Mormon but an attempt to ADD to God's word

Ironhold said:

Have some Hugh Nibley.

Should solve that one right quick.

Click to expand...

The purpose of a discussion board on apologetics is for people to put forth a question or a premise and having others respond with their thoughts on the matter. It is customary that a rebuttal or answer to be in one’s own words with links to sources used to arrive at that conclusion. Simply responding to a post by supplying a link to another’s work and omitting any thoughts of their own on the subject is a confirmation that they have nothing to contribute to the topic.

I could supply a rebuttal to Hugh Nibley’s Baptism for the Dead in Ancient Times discourse but the man is no longer living and would be unavailable to comment on my remarks. So I am at a lost to understand why a link is provided to his work with the comment that it is sufficient to answer the premise presented to the OP. I read Hugh Nibley’s article some years back and re-read it again to refresh my memory of its contents. While it is an intellectual work by a learned man it is by no means factual; it is Hugh Nibley’s opinion based on his knowledge of the topic. Other scholars with equal knowledge and education disagree with Mr. Nibley on his interpretation of the ancient texts he cites as evidence for his conclusions. The majority of the sources cited by Mr. Nibley does not address the baptism of the dead at all but whether or not God would condemn those that are not baptized. At best, all one could conclude from the information in Mr. Nibley’s discourse is to say that ‘historically’ there were religions that practice the doctrine of baptism for the dead.

It is my firm belief that religion is the main culprit in clouding the truth. Who is to say whether the “early church fathers” were part of the Church ordained by God or simply a religious sect that interpreted the scriptures with their own understanding? If we confess that the Bible is the Word of God then this should be the measuring stick to gauge the truthfulness of other revelations or text found outside of the scriptures. If, on the other hand, the Bible has “been watered down and made to fit mans own mortal ideas of God” then any discussion which uses the scriptures as arguments, be it pro or con, is futile.

Hammster said:

2 Timothy was his last letter. That means there were 12 others from Paul that were in existence.

Click to expand...

You missed my point or I didn't explain well enough. Paulnhad no idea what had been written with the exception of maybe Marks

fatboys said:

You missed my point or I didn't explain well enough. Paulnhad no idea what had been written with the exception of maybe Marks

Click to expand...

Paul did not say that all scripture that he was aware of was God-breathed. He just said all scripture.

Hammster said:

Paul did not say that all scripture that he was aware of was God-breathed. He just said all scripture.

Click to expand...

So scripture he was unaware of my be God-breathed?

Jane_Doe said:

So scripture he was unaware of my be God-breathed?

Click to expand...

All scripture.

Hammster said:

All scripture.

Click to expand...

Including those not yet written? (From Paul's time)

Jane_Doe said:

Including those not yet written? (From Paul's time)

Click to expand...

Yes. All scripture.

Hammster said:

Yes. All scripture.

Click to expand...

And does scripture stop coming?

Jane_Doe said:

And does scripture stop coming?

Click to expand...

It has.

Hammster said:

It has.

Click to expand...

[ I was going to reply to this, but then realized how off topic it's become, so I'll leave it]

drstevej said:

"Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the

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.​

Click to expand...

True, Paul didn't say "we" but he said "they".
Who are they? This is the question!
They are "some" to whom Paul was preaching the Gospel. They are Corinthians. See verse 12
12 now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
So, Paul talked to Corinthians. According to Paul some of them did not believe in resurrection of the dead.
It means that the rest among them believed in resurrection. So, those or they who believed in resurrection of the dead baptized for the dead.
One more thing. Why would Paul bring pagans as an example? It doesn't make too much sense.

Alla27 said:

True, Paul didn't say "we" but he said "they".
Who are they? This is the question!

Click to expand...

I have to disagree with Alla27 on what is the question in this discussion. I don’t believe the answer to who “they” is favors either side of the argument. I believe it is more important to define what is meant by “for the dead” to correctly define the true meaning of this verse.

To ascertain the answer to that we must examine all of Paul’s letters to determine what his thoughts were on baptism.

(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 by the glory of the Father, 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 the likeness of his resurrection:

Paul likened baptism as being buried with Christ. Christ died and baptism was an act of faith that we would also be buried in his death and resurrected as he was. Moreover Paul had this to say on faith:

(Jas 2:14-17) What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

I therefore gather from these verses that baptism is a work produced by faith. We have faith that we will be resurrected in Christ and therefore show our faith by being baptism and therefore symbolically buried in his death. Peter has this to say about baptism saving you:

(1Pe 3:20-21) Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Baptism is not what washes away your sins and saves you, but faith in God. Consider this passage in Alma:

Alma (Chapter 34)
32 For behold, this life is the time for men to prepare to meet God; yea, behold the day of this life is the day for men to perform their labors.
33 And now, as I said unto you before, as ye have had so many witnesses, therefore, I beseech of you that ye do not procrastinate the day of your repentance until the end; for after this day of life, which is given us to prepare for eternity, behold, if we do not improve our time while in this life, then cometh the night of darkness wherein there can be no labor performed.
34 Ye cannot say, when ye are brought to that awful crisis, that I will repent, that I will return to my God. Nay, ye cannot say this; for that same spirit which doth possess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world.
35 For behold, if ye have procrastinated the day of your repentance even until death, behold, ye have become subjected to the spirit of the devil, and he doth seal you his; therefore, the Spirit of the Lord hath withdrawn from you, and hath no place in you, and the devil hath all power over you; and this is the final state of the wicked.
36 And this I know, because the Lord hath said he dwelleth not in unholy temples, but in the hearts of the righteous doth he dwell; yea, and he has also said that the righteous shall sit down in his kingdom, to go no more out; but their garments should be made white through the blood of the Lamb.

Verse 34 says it all. No amount of preaching or earthy ordinances will save those who leave this world in unbelief. In summary I cannot see how the ordinance of being baptized for those departed will accomplish the goal of saving them.

Respectfully I have to disagree with you. And this is why. Paul was talking about resurrection of those who physically died. According to Paul some among people to whom he preached did not believe that when people die they will live again. Some among those people didn't believe that dead will be resurrected like Jesus Christ resurrected after He died on the cross.
So Paul was making a point: if dead do not resurrect at all (like Jesus Christ was resurrected) then why some among you(they) do baptism for the dead? If dead do not resurrected like Jesus Christ did then what is the point to do baptism FOR them?

Thank you for your response Alla27. I was beginning to think my post were being blocked as nobody has yet responded to my other posts. I understood your position before I posted and read the comments and scriptures you believed supports your view. However since you added nothing more than you already posted or made any rebuttal to the scriptures I sourced for my belief it is difficult to supply any further rebuttal.

Quite often I see debates that take the form of one side posting scriptures and the opposing side simply posting more scriptures as if to indicate that their scriptures trumps the others. This is not sound rebuttal nor does it add to the discussion. If you post scriptures as rebuttal to another post that included scriptures it then becomes your burden to either reconcile the scriptures you use with those you are debating or show where the poster was incorrect in their understanding of the scriptures they used.

I took the approach that the scripture being used to support baptism for the dead as being taken out of context and therefore supplied other scriptures that I reconciled with the verses in Corinthians. The example I used was to show where Christ being dead was the topic being discussed and therefore it was plausible that the dead was in reference to him. I then supplied other scriptures, and because you are Mormon I used some from the Book of Mormon, to show how being baptized in proxy for someone who passed away didn’t follow the teaching about baptism.

Tawhano said:

I then supplied other scriptures, and because you are Mormon I used some from the Book of Mormon

Click to expand...

You did? I must have missed it, my bad. Could you give me the post #?