Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club discussion
The Forum - Debate Religion
>
Baptizing for the dead?
date
newest »
newest »
I don't know, David. The passage is in the context of proving literal resurrection, so many people conclude Paul was talking about dead believers. And since people were routinely baptized immediately after conversion, the chance of a dead believer being unbaptized is slim. So, the verse makes little sense.We have no historical evidence of such a practice, and no indication elsewhere that Paul promoted the practice. I read there are more than 200 interpretations of this verse!! If I had to make a call, I'd guess that a few Corinthians were doing such a thing (substitutionary baptism) and Paul, while not endorsing it, was saying "why do you oddballs do that if you don't really believe anybody can come back from the dead?"
Although I've probably read that verse a few times it never really stood out to me until yesterday. Although it would make sense for it to be something that was practiced. The Church of Latter Day Saints does baptisms for the dead, but I hadn't heard any biblical reason for that and thought it must have been in The Book of Mormon. Do you thinking that people could become saved after death before the end times? I had never really thought about it before bringing up this topic.
David wrote: "Do you think that people could become saved after death before the end times?"Well, not me personally. The best sense I can make of the "end times" is that anything that is supposed to happen has happened, and we're there. I'm not a preterist, but given the emphasis the New Testament puts on the immediate arrival of Jesus (or the existence of an already initiated kingdom), preterism makes a lot of sense.
Thank you for correcting my phones aggressive auto correct, Lee. So, you don't believe Jesus will be coming back?
David wrote: "Thank you for correcting my phones aggressive auto correct, Lee. So, you don't believe Jesus will be coming back?"
I'm not very good at believing stuff, David. I share this particular understanding with many early Christians, including the author of the Gospel of John.
It's interesting how this stuff was never brought up in my churches. That's probably why I didn't enjoy it much. I like asking questions and seeing different peoples interpretations. I don't think a lot church folk care for that.
Lee you do NOT share that with the author of John. You just have a lazy understanding of John's Gospel account. But hey! Whatever helps you sleep at night. :DLee we must have another discussion about your preterist (like) understanding of revelation. It's very fascinating - and shoddy.
A very cool Lee quote: " If I had to make a call, I'd guess that a few Corinthians were doing such a thing (substitutionary baptism) and Paul, while not endorsing it, was saying "why do you oddballs do that if you don't really believe anybody can come back from the dead?"
Another thought is: what if they mean JESUS! Who else are people being baptized by? Many people assume this verse is eternally plural and refers to many dead saints or civilians. God may have given us this verse in its partially confusing manner so that evil will be allowed to run it's course (I believe the Mormons and Catholics have abused this verse to their hearts desires over the centuries.)
I'll rewrite the verse for you. (Hopefully it's not blasphemous.)
1 Corinthians 15:29 (the possibly silly Rod translation.)
"Otherwise, what do correct Christians mean by being baptized on behalf of Jesus? If Jesus was never raised at all, then why are we even bothering to baptize on his behalf?"
I could be wrong. But why be in danger every hour (verse 30) if Jesus did not raise from the dead? Who cares if anyone else was raised - they didn't pay for my sin. The Bible is all about Jesus...from start to finish.
This verse has two challenges:It's about the dead (plural) and it's also about THE dead (Jesus).
Almost makes me wish I knew Greek.
Rod (or anybody) - I'm happy to my send books at my cost if anyone is interested in discussion, either about John's Gospel or Revelation. Printing and shipping is about $7 total. Then we can have a REAL discussion about my preterist leanings or John's fulfilled eschatology. :)
Lee, I will read your book when I finish the ones I have on my bookshelf. I think I currently have yours on my wishlist. Rod, for whatever reason I don't believe those verses are referring to Jesus. I never got that feeling but I could be wrong. This is where the study bibles I desperately want might come in handy.
Sorry Lee - no time to read your book. I would enjoy thoroughly discussing preterism with you. I have a billion questions about how they attempt to read the Bible.
Rod, I think reading Lee's book would probably answer some of those questions.
Probably not, to be honest. The book is more about first-century beliefs than 21st-century beliefs.
I have yet to meet a preterist that hasn't been wrong in 100 other areas of Biblical theology. The odds of them being correct about Revelation is ludicrous. Having said that - there are some fun similarities. Why write a poetic vision of a recently past historical event? Who will that possibly help?
How many preterists have you met?Trying to pull Revelation out from its first-century setting is what is ludicrous.
Trying to pull Revelation out from its first-century setting is what is ludicrous.Amen! And you don't have to be liberal to say that. Just read Greg Beale's (Reformed scholar, btw)) commentary...or Craig Keener, Ben Witherington and so on.
I've chatted with about 10 preterists. Again I ask:
Why give a poetic visionary historical account after an event? Who is this helping? Is New Jerusalem all its cracked up to be? What was the point of the oil value in the first century? The account appears to have all been a waste of time. Why bother to read it? What a boring ending to the Bible it is for Preterists. All that hype for such a small local event that barely affects humanity.
I should check what date you folks give to the writing of Revelation?
Why didn't God give us another book based on other Jewish squabbles and destructions? If Revelation is NOT the end of our story - then our God is not very helpful in the Hope department. Our Bible should have a new book every 400 years or so.
I find it astounding how you guys simply dismiss opposing eschatological views as "ludicrous". The preterist view of Revelation has major flaws ... here are just a few off the top of my head. 1. It ignores the literal fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. If OT prophecy was fulfilled literally, why would we expect anything different from Revelation. There are countless examples of OT prophecies that were fulfilled literally. If the first coming of Christ was fulfilled literally, why should His second coming be any different?
2. It abuses the use of allegory. Preterists extend allegory to unfilled prophecy simply because they have a hard time believing the text means what it says. There is no solid reason to do so. The imminent return of Christ is one of the primary reason we are to share His gospel with others.
3. It is inconsistent. Preterists switch arbitrarily between allegory and literal events throughout Revelation. This inconsistency leaves the preterist's interpretation far too subjective to be of any use. In my opinion, preterism ignores the text and forces a subjective opinion on it.
4. It ignores the internal text of Revelation itself. Consider Revelation 1:19 which clearly communicates that the book speaks to past, present, and future events.
5. A literal (normal) interpretation speaks to the 1st Century meaning and the eschatological meaning of Revelation without sacrificing one in favor of the other. It also illuminates and clarifies other eschatological passages of Scripture. For instance, if you can study the 70 weeks of Daniel and still hold to a preterist's interpretation of Revelation, your inconsistency becomes blinding.
I am the first person to admit that Revelation is a complicated book and good Christians fall on different sides of interpretation. However, if you are a preterist, you might as well throw out 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Daniel, Jeremiah, and render the OT prophecies in the OT concerning Christ's first coming as allegorical. While your at it, you might as well render Christ Himself as allegorical ... deny His resurrection, deny heaven, and hell.
Clark
I agree with most of what Clark said, but take exception to the following points he made:Preterists extend allegory to unfilled prophecy simply because they have a hard time believing the text means what it says.
Ironically, preterists claim futurists won't "believe the text means what it says" when it claims, many times in many ways, that the end times were beginning. Who in their right mind thinks "soon" means "oh, maybe in a couple thousand years."
A literal (normal) interpretation
"Normal" changes all the time. For hundreds of years after Revelation was written, it was quite "normal" to assume Nero Caesar was coming back (the mark of the beast, 666, points to Nero and everybody knew it).
Preterists switch arbitrarily between allegory and literal events throughout Revelation.
Don't most interpretations? For example, most assume the references to the Temple mean a literal building, while most assume the references to a seven-headed dragon aren't literal.
It ignores the internal text of Revelation itself.
Here we couldn't disagree more. I don't even know where to begin on this one, lol.
Excellent points Lee. And Rod, unless someone is a full preterist I’m not sure how that’s a relevant objection.
Rod, if the New Jerusalem doesn't measure up, it's our own dang fault. That's my interpretation.btw, I date Revelation to about 80 CE, contradicting scholars on both ends (more common is the 10th decade (traditional belief) or before the war (preterists). My dating is based on examination of all the events happening about 80 CE that would trigger the writing.
Interesting Lee. So Revelation is just a historical account that helps who? And how?
Revelation is what it is, Rod: Encouragement for the Christians in Asia Minor who were going through tribulation, hoping they would stand true to their convictions, because a great reward was on the horizon.
I wouldn't say that Revelation is very encouraging. Not for everyone. Did those in Asia Minor assume most of this story was not applicable to them?
Rod wrote: "I wouldn't say that Revelation is very encouraging. Not for everyone. Did those in Asia Minor assume most of this story was not applicable to them?"Heck, no! They knew precisely what he was writing about, and the encouragement to avoid the corruption of Caesar worship in Asia Minor.
THat is a fun way to read The Revelation of Jesus Christ. I just think it's short sighted. They don't really WIN in the end do they? Not like the story claims.
Well, Rome got away with winning the war in Jerusalem, with no retribution from a returning Messiah. Revelation looks forward to the great war on the horizon between Rome and the Parthians (the armies were building even as John wrote) but when they finally clashed in 114 AD, the Romans clobbered the Parthians, too. Probably not quite what John imagined, especially when Jesus didn't make his entrance then either.Of course, preterists read the whole thing differently.
If Israel was not a nation and Jerusalem was not being fought over I would probably read Revelation differently than I do at this time in history. :DDo all Preterists read Revelation the same? I doubt it.
No, they don't. There are partial preterists and full preterists. They mostly agree on events up through the war of 70 AD, because that stuff makes literal sense, but disagree on whether all things were fulfilled ... the second coming, the resurrection, the millennium. Then there's me, who agrees up through the war, and then says "well, heck, John sure guessed wrong in the second half of Revelation."
I say John guessed right. You just don't like it. :DAlthough it is prophecy - so we'll both wait and see.
David wrote: "Although I've probably read that verse a few times it never really stood out to me until yesterday. Although it would make sense for it to be something that was practiced. The Church of Latter Day Saints does baptisms for the dead, but I hadn't heard any biblical reason for that and thought it must have been in The Book of Mormon."It's not found in the Book of Mormon. LDS members believe in modern day revelation so a lot of their beliefs aren't found in any scriptures. Joseph Smith read that verse, prayed to God to ask about it, and claimed God revealed to him that baptism for the dead was one of the lost tenants of early Christianity. The same is true for the division of heaven into three degrees of glory based on 1 Corinthians 15:39-43.
In this verse Paul was trying to mature the church of Corinth who must not have believed in the resurrection of the dead. We see him trying to get this through to them in the many verses before. That Christ was raised, and Christians as well will be raised. In verse 29 he was using their practice in a person being baptized on behalf of a dead believer who died before they could be baptized as evidence that to show that it is pointless to do this if they didn't believe in a resurrection of the dead. He was not supporting their practice of baptism for the dead, but using it as a point on why the should believe in resurrection of the believer. No where else in the Bible is this practiced supported. So, my answer would be no we are not to practice baptism of the dead. Salvation is a choice that only the individual can make. I don't believe that a Christian who dies before getting baptized is any less saved than those who do. You cannot force salvation on a dead person who rejected it in life, though.
Guillermo, I was hoping you would comment. Thanks for clearing that up for me. I've been wondering about it but I'm making my way through the book of Mormon very slowly. Sarah, I agree with you that salvation can't be forced on the dead. I do find it interesting that it's not mentioned negatively though.
David, to clarify on what Sarah said, the LDS church doesn't think baptizing for the dead now means they're members of the church, only that they have the choice to accept or reject what has been done for them. Their theology about the next life is very complicated. They feel after someone dies they go to the spirit world which is divided between spirit prison (hell) and paradise. Those in paradise continue to preach the gospel to those in spirit prison. Since baptism, as well as temple work, are needed to enter the highest degree of heaven, all the needed ordinances are done for those who have passed on so if they do accept the gospel in the next life they will have had all the required work done for them. And I agree with you, it's strange how he mentions it as if it's common knowledge to support the idea of a literal resurrection without seeming to be critical of the practice itself.
I don't remember if my Mormon friend explained that the spirit prison to me. I didn't realize that they believed you continue to witness after death. Really interesting stuff.
Guillermo: With respect ... I don't think you are clarifying what I said. But, taking what I wrote from a biblical perspective and expanding on it with the LDS belief. I'm not LDS.
Sarah, sorry, I meant to clarify what Mormon's believe based on what you said. I obviously have no idea what you personally believe.
I just never noticed it before so I wanted to ask those more knowledgeable than myself.
David