mikes@tekecs.UUCP (Michael Sellers) (10/15/86)
Okay, maybe this will spark some discussion:
To my knowledge, the only church or branch of Christianity that doesn't
ignore the practice of baptism for the dead is the LDS church. This practice
is mentioned in 1 Cor. 15:29 ("Now if there is no ressurrection, what will
those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all,
why are people baptized for them?" NIV). What I would like to know is, what
do other Christians think about this verse and this practice? Why isn't it
more widely acknowledged? My intention here IS NOT to start any sort of a
holy war, just to elicit opinions from various quarters. With regard to the
specific verse, I might add that it does not seem to be a mistranslation (it
reads virtually identically in Greek as it does in the NIV), nor is Paul using
it as an example without accepting the practice as valid. It is clear from
the discussion as a whole that he is using this practice to bolster is point,
hardly something he would do if he disapproved of it. I realize that many
Christians feel that specific religious practices are peripheral to the core
of the religion, but there are others who feel the various rites are more
than empty form and attempt to follow what they think the Bible is telling
them is right to do. It is from these latter type folks I would be most
interested in hearing.
Mike Sellers
...tektronix!tekecs!mikesharry@uw-atm.UUCP (10/17/86)
In article <6230@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU>, mikes@tekecs.UUCP (Michael Sellers) writes: > It is clear from the discussion as a whole that he is using this practice to > bolster is point, hardly something he would do if he disapproved of it. 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. 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). It is always dangerous for Christians to base their practice from one verse in the Bible. The Bible has to be taken as a whole. Your brother in Christ Jesus, --- Harry Edmon UUCP: uw-beaver!geops!uw-atm!harry (206) 543-0547 BITNET: 24440@UWACDC Department of Atmospheric Sciences University of Washington
mberkley@watdcsu.UUCP (J.M.Berkley - Computing Services) (10/17/86)
In article mikes@tekecs.UUCP (Michael Sellers) writes: > To my knowledge, the only church or branch of Christianity that doesn't >ignore the practice of baptism for the dead is the LDS church. This practice >is mentioned in 1 Cor. 15:29 ("Now if there is no ressurrection, what will >those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, >why are people baptized for them?" NIV). What I would like to know is, what >do other Christians think about this verse and this practice? If someone did not become a christian during their lifetime, it was probably because a) they didn't know about him or b) they did not like to be around God :-) If the reason was b, then a loving God (which Jesus is) would not force them to abide in his presence for all of eternity. They would probably be more unhappy in heaven than in hell. I'm not being silly, I really think that they would be happier not being around Jesus if they did not want to be around him on this earth. If the reason was a, then a loving God could not justly condemn them to hell. This may tread on a few religious toes, but if they don't know that they have to be saved to get to heaven, then God wouldn't justly hold them back from being in heaven. God is just, merciful, loving and omnicient. He knows what is best for each person, whether they be christian, actively non-christian or un-educated. He will choose what is best for each person, because he loves us all. Mike Berkley
harwood@cvl.UUCP (David Harwood) (10/19/86)
In article <6279@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> harry@uw-atm.UUCP writes: >In article <6230@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU>, mikes@tekecs.UUCP(Michael Sellers)writes: >> It is clear from the discussion as a whole that he is using this practice to >> bolster is point, hardly something he would do if he disapproved of it. > >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. > >I see no support in the Scriptures for baptism for the dead outside of this >verse. ... 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. Here, the context of discussion concerns "resurrection of the dead", and Paul says that "in Christ all shall be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the first-fruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ." In early Christianity (and ancient Judaism), there is intentional ambiguity of usage of the expression "the dead", referring to the physically dead, but more importantly to the spiritually dead. As Jesus said, agreeing with Jewish tradition, the Patriarchs and the righteous "dead" are yet alive with God. He was talking about misconceptions about "the resurrection", also Paul's subject. A second thing which is misunderstood by modern Christians is that baptism was considered to be a real "resurrection" event because of which we share in the eternal life of Christ. (This is why Paul says "If there is no resurrection our faith is in vain, and we are still in our sins..." The real importance of the resurrection is that we are spiritually raised up in Christ; if this were not so, then even the fact of Jesus' physical resurrection would be unimportant - we should be resurrected physically to the same sinful miserable lives.) Now Paul says that there is an order to the redemption of mankind, Christ being the first-fruits. And through him, others also are raised up. Indeed, this is the order - those who are not alive in Christ in every generation are raised up with the suffering and help of those who are already share in the eternal life of Christ. The missionaries like Paul suffer in Christ for the sake of others. (see what continues this passage where Paul describes his own suffering) He suffers for the sake of the redemption of the the spiritually "dead". 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 [I have abbreviated the quotations from the previous article slightly. I will also silently change spacing where necessary to fit lines within 79 characters [Emacs and other software reserve the last character], and fix obvious typos if I happen to notice them. I hope no one considers these improper moderatorial action. --clh]