mikes@tekecs.UUCP (Michael Sellers) (11/02/86)
(In order to save space and so as not to repeat myself, I am replying to two postings at the same time.) I wrote: >> It is clear from the discussion as a whole that he [Paul] is using this >> practice to bolster his point, hardly something he would do if he >> disapproved of it. Harry Edmon then wrote: > I would disagree with this. I believe that there must of been a sect at > Paul's time that practiced baptism for the dead. Paul just points out that > if there is not baptism of the dead, what these people are doing is even > more futile. There are two points that lead me to believe that Paul is giving implicit approval to this practice. First, Paul seems to have taken a different stance from many modern Christians wrt various rites surrounding the faith. It seems to me (and I am sure some people would argue this) that Paul was concerned with the practice of the Christian faith, including some of the ritualistic aspects of it. His discussions of eating/not eating meat offered to idols, head covering and length of hair, and how religious services should be conducted all bear witness to his concern with what some would now consider to be the more peripheral aspects of Christianity. He speaks similarly at some point regarding the basic portions of the faith (baptism, spiritual gifts, etc) saying something like "do we have to keep going back over this basic stuff?" This point, that he did view all aspects of Christian life as significant, no matter how small or esoteric seeming, leads me to my second one. Given this type of attitude, Paul would be ill-serving his argument (that the resurrection was a factual occurance) by using for support a practice that he did not approve of. Or, at the very least, the Corinthians to whom he was writing were aware of and did not disapprove of the practice of baptism for the dead; that he should use this as an example without any sort of remark or disclaimer (as surely he would have included in a letter filled with other pieces of insight and guidance for a group of struggling Christians), strongly implies that he knew of and approved of the practice. If he disapproved of the practice of baptism for the dead, it was very out of character for him to mention it without saying that he disapproved of it, especially in a letter to people who clearly were struggling with the faith on many levels. It is highly unlikely that Paul was merely neutral on this point, as he seems to be neutral on very few things, and even then he takes the time to explain himself (e.g. meat offered before idols, to marry or not). All of which leads me to believe that he was using the example of a rite known both to him and the struggling Corinthians, and that he implicitly approved of it (note too that the things which Paul spends the *least* amount of time on are those things which he believes and were not controversial; while this point is no proof, it is evidential in this case). > I see no support in the Scriptures for baptism for the dead outside of this > verse. Using Scripture to interpret Scripture (a usual Lutheran practice), I > cannot conclude that Paul is putting his stamp of approval on this practice. > In addtion, there are plenty of verses which state that there is no > additional chance for salvation after death (e.g. the parable of the Rich Man > and Lazarus, Luke 16:19-31). > Harry Edmon UUCP: uw-beaver!geops!uw-atm!harry While there are no other verses in the Bible that refere explicitly to baptism for the dead, there are other verses that support it. Ironically, you mention Luke 16:19-31, which is one that I would say bolsters the LDS idea of baptism for the dead. In this parable, the suffering (and dead) rich man was one who had been exposed to God's teachings ("Moses and the Prophets"), and so was not a candidate for redemption after death. Only those who do not hear about God/Jesus while alive, but who would have accepted had they heard, can be affected by a baptism for them after they have died. The idea is basically this: after we die, we do not go to heaven or hell, but to the spirit world (Sheol) until the time of the resurrection. If a person was good or Christian (intentionally nebulous here since I in no position to judge who goes where) in this life, they go to Paradise to await joyfully the time of resurrection. If a person was not Christian, they go to the spirit prison to await the same events. The difference between the two is one of state; you are basically left with the same mental/emotional set as when you were alive. If you were an evil nasty person here, that will not change after you die. If you were a good, loving person here, you will again be the same after you die. If you had rejected Christianity while here, your mindset will not change; you will still reject it then. If you were a good person who *would* have accepted Christianity if you hadn't lived in Borneo, or if you hadn't seen a twisted version during the Inquisition, say, then you will have a chance to accept it in the spirit world after you die. The thing is, according to our belief, the various rites in the faith are not mere empty ritual; each is necessary for salvation. Thus even though the thief on the cross acknowledged Jesus as God, he would still need to be baptised to be saved (though he would go to Paradise after he died). This is true of all those who have died without having the chance to be baptised. Of course, I can't really know if my great-great-grandfather could have been but didn't want to be baptised while on earth, so I'll do it for him anyway. If he died still rejecting the faith then his baptism now will have no meaning, just as baptising someone living and unwilling has no meaning. But it is not for me to say; he may accept it or reject it depending on his mindset. There is more theological depth to this doctrine than I have given it here; if there is interest I can discuss it more. But this should lay to rest questions about second chances for redemption, etc. ------ > From: harwood@cvl.UUCP (David Harwood) > I believe that this discussion by Paul, like a number of > others which seem to be problematical to us (eg 'speaking in tongues'), > is very misunderstood among modern Christians, even among scholars, > because we are unfamiliar with ancient Christian manners of speaking > which are derived from contemporary Judaism. While the historical-critical method of scriptural analysis can be a strong one to use, it is also dangerous in that socio-religous theories often become blurred with known fact; it is easy to end up treating a supposition as established fact when you have little else to go on. Along these lines, David makes many assumptions and states many arguable opinions as fact. For brevity I am not going to quote them here, nor is it my purpose to argue them here. He concludes with: > So what is being discussed by Paul concerning the "baptism for > the sake of the dead" is very much related to what precedes and follows > in context, that is, discussion of "the order" of redemption. Paul is > saying here that we who are made alive in Christ, even by our own > baptism in Christ, are made so for the sake of the redemption of those > who are still spiritually dead. That is why Paul himself was baptised > in Christ at the event of his conversion, for the sake of the redemption > of the Gentiles who were alienated from God, spiritually dead. > Yours in Christ, > David Harwood To my mind, this is one of the better examples I've seen of someone taking some historical truths/theories/assumptions and extrapolating completely away from the text. Paul does *not* mention baptism "for the sake of the redemption of those who are still spiritually dead." The Greek is quite clear. An almost direct quote (I don't have it here in front of me) is "if there is no resurrection, what will them do who are baptised in place of those who have died?" The context of the discussion is the physical reality of the bodily resurrection; even a cursory reading will make this evident. Given that Paul was speaking more or less literally about a rite practiced in his time, the question then becomes what bearing does this have upon Christians today, and what are the theological implications of such a practice? If it is simply another peripheral rite that doesn't really matter, why was it practiced in the early church? Does it matter if we practice it now? And if it isn't just a peripheral rite, then what does it mean that the vast majority of the Christian world ignores it today? Hoping for continued enlightening discussion, Mike Sellers ...!tektronix!tekecs!mikes [Sorry for the long delay in this group. I had a critical demonstration this week, and was unable to get to moderation. You'll see more articles than usual tonight. I'm letting Mike have the last word here because there were a couple of people making various attacks from the other side. But I think we have said as much as can be said usefully on what Paul meant. The question of the theology of the practice is still open, though. In the Reformed tradition, Baptism is not necessary for salvation. It is a sacrament: a visible acting out of God's call to us. Since I believe that God has called everyone, I don't think a baptism for others would necessarily be wrong. But a lot would depend upon what it means. Would it be necessary for salvation? Would it be done for everyone in the history of the world, or just our own ancestors? Would it lead to what we would regard as superstition, i.e. that if you miss someone, he is damned? I hope no one has any problem with looking in more detail at distinctive practices of specific groups that have grown out of the Chrisitian tradition, such as the LDS, as long as it is done in the spirit of Christian charity. --clh]