• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Squirt vs FerventGodSeeker: Baptism for the Dead

Squirt

Well-Known Member
Baptisms on behalf of those who died without hearing the gospel of Jesus Christ were performed during the years immediately following His death. Most people are not aware of this, because their churches do not accept this doctrine today. We believe that this is one of many doctrines that was lost from the earth for many centuries and then restored.

A single reference to this practice is found in the Bible. It is found in 1 Corinthians 15:29:

"Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? Why are they then baptized for the dead?"

Here, the Apostle Paul was speaking to a group of people who did not believe in the resurrection. Among the arguments that he advanced to prove his point was that if there were no resurrection, and therefore no afterlife, there would be no point in doing baptisms for the dead. It appears obvious that he wasn't at all concerned with trying to convince them that baptisms were being performed on behalf of the dead. They accepted that without question. What he was doing was trying to use this indisputable fact to try to convince the people of the reality of the resurrection.

This practice was known and practiced by devout Christians in ancient times. It was sanctioned by Jesus Christ's Apostles and therefore should be practiced today.
 
[
Baptisms on behalf of those who died without hearing the gospel of Jesus Christ were performed during the years immediately following His death. Most people are not aware of this, because their churches do not accept this doctrine today. We believe that this is one of many doctrines that was lost from the earth for many centuries and then restored.

Aside from the single Bible verse which you cite below, what historical evidence do you have that early Christians practiced baptism for the dead?

A single reference to this practice is found in the Bible. It is found in 1 Corinthians 15:29:

"Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? Why are they then baptized for the dead?"

A few things should be noticed about this verse. First of all, "they" is the group of people being talked about. Throughout 1 Corinthians, including throughout the 15th chapter, Paul addresses the Christian church of Corinth as "we". The very next verse (verse 30) says, "And why do we stand in jeopardy every hour?" You use this verse to indicate that Christians were the ones performing these baptisms, yet the verse does not say "we" do them, it says "they" do them. Clearly another group, aside from the Christians, is in view. Many believe that, for example, Paul was citing the practice as practiced by a heretical cult which was near Corinth during the early church. However, this baptism clearly was not practiced by the orthodox believers in the early Church, but rather by another group.
Secondly, the phrase "for the dead" is extremely ambiguous, both in the English and the original Greek. It does not necesarily mean "in place of the dead". Some believe this verse references the baptism of new believers, in remembrance of the faith of believers who are now deceased. The Mormon exegesis of the verse as a practice where living saints are baptized in the place of unsaved people who have never heard the gospel, simply cannot be arrived at in context, and must be inserted into the passage with the concept already in mind. There is simply no reason to interpret the passage in that specific way.

Here, the Apostle Paul was speaking to a group of people who did not believe in the resurrection. Among the arguments that he advanced to prove his point was that if there were no resurrection, and therefore no afterlife, there would be no point in doing baptisms for the dead. It appears obvious that he wasn't at all concerned with trying to convince them that baptisms were being performed on behalf of the dead. They accepted that without question. What he was doing was trying to use this indisputable fact to try to convince the people of the reality of the resurrection.

This practice was known and practiced by devout Christians in ancient times. It was sanctioned by Jesus Christ's Apostles and therefore should be practiced today.

Indeed, he was not denying that some form of baptism "for the dead" was taking place, by some external group. However, they were not the orthodox Christians being written to in the epistle, and they were not necesarily even practicing the same type of baptism that Mormons practice today. With a lack of historical evidence, and an extremely stretched interpretation of a single verse, Mormon baptism for the dead simply doesn't have much ground to stand on.

FerventGodSeeker
 

Squirt

Well-Known Member
FerventGodSeeker said:
Hi Squirt! Where are you?? If you don't respond by tomorrow I'm just going to assume this debate is over, ok?

FerventGodSeeker
It's not over! No way! I've just been busy and haven't had a chance to respond. Sometimes it may take me a day or so.

Aside from the single Bible verse which you cite below, what historical evidence do you have that early Christians practiced baptism for the dead?
I can’t help but wonder how many times a doctrine would have to be mentioned in the Bible to quality it as truth. Would twice be sufficient? Three times? In the absence of anything to the contrary, I’d say that even one mention should give any Christian cause to at least consider it. And yet, because there is not a plethora of references to this practice, most Christians are only too eager to dismiss the one we have. I’ll tell you one thing for sure: This single reference to baptisms for the dead is one more reference than can be found for the baptism of infants!

Let’s look at the phrase, “the gates of hell.” As a Catholic, you probably cite the Savior’s promise to His apostles that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church, as proof that a universal Apostasy would never take place. But a first-century Christian or Jew would not have interpreted this phrase in the same way that a twenty-first-century Catholic does. To Peter and the other Apostles, “the gates of hell” would have meant nothing more sinister than “the entrance to the Spirit World.” They would have thought of Hell or Hades as a place where the dead were detained while they awaited an ultimate release. The early Christians spoke of “the prison of death.” Release from this prison was accomplished through baptism, as described in the early Christian poem, “The Odes of Solomon.” In that poem, we read of Christ’s visit to the underworld to preach to the dead and of His providing them with the seal of baptism, thereby unlocking the gate to the prison in which they are being held.

In “The Pastor of Hermes,” we read of the visits of the Apostles – after their own deaths – to the underworld. From that document:

“These Apostles, and the teachers who had proclaimed the name of the Son of God preached likewise to the dead, and they gave them the seal of the preaching. The accordingly went down with them into the water and came out again. But although they went down while they were alive and came up alive, these who had fallen asleep before them went down dead, but came out again living, for it was through these that they were made alive, and learned the name of the Son of God.”

I can provide you with additional early sources which support this doctrine, but for now will move onto other points.
A few things should be noticed about this verse. First of all, "they" is the group of people being talked about. Throughout 1 Corinthians, including throughout the 15th chapter, Paul addresses the Christian church of Corinth as "we". The very next verse (verse 30) says, "And why do we stand in jeopardy every hour?" You use this verse to indicate that Christians were the ones performing these baptisms, yet the verse does not say "we" do them, it says "they" do them. Clearly another group, aside from the Christians, is in view. Many believe that, for example, Paul was citing the practice as practiced by a heretical cult which was near Corinth during the early church. However, this baptism clearly was not practiced by the orthodox believers in the early Church, but rather by another group.
I disagree. How can you say what is “clearly” the case? How can you presume that he is condemning or disapproving of this practice when he says absolutely nothing to that effect? There is no noun preceding the use of the pronoun, “they.” Therefore, it is virtually impossible to say for sure whether it refers to the Christians or to some other group. If someone were to ask me, “Why do the Mormons do [such and such]?” it would be entirely within reason for me to respond by saying, “They do so because…” Of course, I could say, “We do so because…”, but depending upon the context, the use of the word “they” can certainly not be used to rule out the possibility that Paul was, in fact, speaking of the Christians and not of a “heretical cult.” If we’re going to even attempt to look at this from a logical perspective, can you give me one good reason why Paul would have cited the practice of a heretical cult to strengthen his argument for the resurrection? Have you ever done anything so preposterous.

I am trying to keep this post to a reasonable length, so I won’t elaborate on Paul’s use of the pronoun “they” – except to say that not all Christians did perform baptisms for the dead. The ones who did, however, were not heretics. They were, on the contrary, those who had been privileged to hear the doctrines of Christ’s second ministry, i.e. those teachings which followed His resurrection. (More on this in my next post.)

I would very much like to hear your reasons why the Catholic Church is so determined to discredit this practice. You and I agree that Jesus Christ did command us to be baptized both by water and by spirit. He specifically stated that we cannot be saved without having received this ordinance. By denying the righteous dead the opportunity to receive this ordinance by proxy, you are forced to choose between believing in a God who will disregard what He told mankind was a requirement for salvation and a God who would be so cruel as to condemn billions of His own children to an eternity in Hell for no other reason than that they were born in the wrong place or at the wrong time.
 

Squirt

Well-Known Member
So how soon after my opponent decides to bail am I allowed to declare victory? :confused: We had agreed to four posts each. I posted twice and FerventGodSeeker posted once. I guess the LDS position was just too strong. :D
 
Hi, Squirt!
I can’t help but wonder how many times a doctrine would have to be mentioned in the Bible to quality it as truth. Would twice be sufficient? Three times?...
I didn't just ask for another Bible verse. I asked for other historical evidence, which could include things outside the Bible. As you correctly note, one mention of something in Scripture should be enough to note it at least to some extent, although generally one could say that when something is mentioned numerous times it is obviously degined to be prominent in the text and an important context. However, the issue is that, not only is it just mentioned in a single verse, but it is not explained in the passage, and phrase used to describe this baptism, "for the dead", is just as ambiguous in the original Greek as it is in English. The phrase doesn't have to denote a concept of being baptized "in the place of" some deceased person. It is the job of the Mormons to prove why this passage means what they practice.
I don't have any idea why you brought up infant baptism, since it has little to do with what we're talking about. If you wanted to debate infant baptism, then we should have chosen that topic. However, we chose Mormon baptism "for the dead". Let's try to stick to that topic.

Let’s look at the phrase, “the gates of hell.” As a Catholic, you probably cite the Savior’s promise to His apostles...
Probably..."And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it." Matthew 16:18

But a first-century Christian or Jew would not have interpreted this phrase in the same way that a twenty-first-century Catholic does. To Peter and the other Apostles, “the gates of hell” would have meant nothing more sinister than “the entrance to the Spirit World.” ...a place where the dead were detained while they awaited an ultimate release.
Where did you get that idea? "And you, Capernaum, who are exalted to the heavens, will be brought down to Hades..." Matthew 11:23; "And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off..." Luke 16:23 "Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell?" Matthew 23:33; "But whoever says 'You fool!' shall be in danger of hell fire." Matthew 5:22; "And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." Matthew 10:28 Does this really sound like some neutral waiting ground to you? I'm not seeing it.

The early Christians spoke of “the prison of death.” ...as described in the early Christian poem, “The Odes of Solomon.”...
I hate to be picky, but there are 42 "Odes of Solomon". I didn't feel like reading them all, lol. Which Ode are you referring to?
In “The Pastor of Hermes,” we read of the visits of the Apostles – after their own deaths – to the underworld...
Again, I'm not trying to be difficult, but I have a copy of the "The Pastor of Hermes" (aka "The Shepherd of Hermas). In my particular book, the writing is 96 pages long. Do you mind citing where in the text you took this quote from? My translation divides it into 4 Visions, a 5th Revelation, 12 Mandates, and 10 Parables. Norrowing it down so I don't have to read QUITE so much context would be much appreciated :) .


I disagree. How can you say what is “clearly” the case? How can you presume that he is condemning or disapproving of this practice when he says absolutely nothing to that effect?
The point of the chapter isn't to condemn baptism for the dead, and doing so at length would be side-tracking, it seems to me. If you view the "they" in the passage as a heretical cult, Paul was simply saying, "Heck, even THEY believe in a resurrection...and they even baptize for the dead!" The problem is, even though, sure, Paul doesn't denounce the practice, he doesn't endorse it either. He simply mentions it, almost in passing. And, like I've said, the phrase "for the dead" is ambiguous, and doesn't necesitate the Mormon interpretation of the passage. Thus, you must provide either a) contextual evidence that "baptism for the dead" should be interpreted the way Mormons practice it, or b) historical evidence citing the fact that early orthodox Christian practiced baptism for the dead as Mormons do today. Considering that Paul goes into zero depth at all as to the meaning of baptism for the dead, finding contextual evidence seems impossible from my perspective, although you may try. As for historical evidence, I'm withholding comment on the two passages you mentioned until you cite them for me, as I said (Sorry, I'm really not in the mood to sit down and read 96 pages just to find four lines of text, lol).

There is no noun preceding the use of the pronoun, “they.”...
Why does there have to be a noun in front of "they" in order for "they" to refer to another group? In the context of a passage where Christians are referred to consistently as "we", it seems logical to interpret a random insertion of "they" as another group.


If someone were to ask me, “Why do the Mormons do [such and such]?” it would be entirely within reason for me to respond by saying, “They do so because…” ...
I could buy that explanation, except that the context of the passage doesn't agree with you. The passage does not switch back and forth from "they" to "we" and back again. It refers to Christians constantly as "we" (including all derivatives, i.e. "our" etc). Then, we have one single verse in the whole passage, which refers to a group called "they" doing something that no Christian is seen doing in all the rest of the Bible. Based on the context alone, you cannot make the determination that the verse refers to what the Mormon church wants it to refer to.

If we’re going to even attempt to look at this from a logical perspective, can you give me one good reason why Paul would have cited the practice of a heretical cult to strengthen his argument for the resurrection? ...
Sure. He would have cited it to reinforce the fact that we, as Christians, should believe in the power of the resurrection. If even HERETICAL religious groups believe in a resurrection, how much more should we? For example, Jesus says, "If you, then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!" Luke 11:13 A comparison between non-believers and believers is made all the time through Scripture. Paul could easily being saying in the 1 Cor. passage that, if even a heretical group believes and acts on this truth of the resurrection, how much more should we?


I would very much like to hear your reasons why the Catholic Church is so determined to discredit this practice...
The Catholic Church opposes the practice, most obviously, because she sees it as heretical and not part of Church Tradition. It is not and has never been a part of Church teaching. It was an innovation by the Mormon church.
As for people that have never had the opportunity to be baptized, I leave the fate of such people in the hands of God. If they have never had the chance to hear the Gospel, nonetheless be baptized, God knows that, and I believe He will have mercy on such people. Yes, as a general rule, salvation is a requirement of baptism. However, obviously God can make exceptions to His own rules. Consider the thief on the cross, who Jesus told, "Today you will be with Me in Paradise." (Luke 23:43), immediately after the man repented. Jesus guarantees this man Paradise, who has never been baptized, and since he's being executed, never would be baptized. Yet Jesus, who holds the keys of Death and Hades (Rev. 1:18) makes an allowance for this man to gain salvation. I believe this example proves the point that God can make exceptions to His own rules. While baptism is a general requirement for those who are ABLE to be baptized, those who never even had the opportunity to be baptized are obviously exempt.

FerventGodSeeker
 

Squirt

Well-Known Member
Hey, Seeker! You didn't bail on me after all. :)

[The] phrase used to describe this baptism, "for the dead", is just as ambiguous in the original Greek as it is in English. The phrase doesn't have to denote a concept of being baptized "in the place of" some deceased person.
Would you mind suggesting an alternate meaning then? If you do something “for” someone else, you do it “in place of, as a representative of, or on behalf of” that person. I know of no other commonly used meanings for the word in this context.
The point of the chapter isn't to condemn baptism for the dead, and doing so at length would be side-tracking, it seems to me. If you view the "they" in the passage as a heretical cult, Paul was simply saying, "Heck, even THEY believe in a resurrection...and they even baptize for the dead!"
The Greek original of Corinthians 15:29 does not, incidentally, use the pronoun “they” at all. It says, “Otherwise, what will do the ones being baptized for the dead?” As I have already pointed out, Paul, of all people, was so sensitive to blasphemy that he, of all people, would not have argued for the reality of the resurrection by using a heretical practice as an example. And interestingly, he did not appear to have to give his audience any sort of background information on the practice. The very fact that he mentioned it so casually implies that the people of Corinth were familiar with the practice.
I don't have any idea why you brought up infant baptism, since it has little to do with what we're talking about. If you wanted to debate infant baptism, then we should have chosen that topic. However, we chose Mormon baptism "for the dead". Let's try to stick to that topic.
It was not my intention to change the subject. I was merely responding to your argument that there is only one verse in the Bible that makes mention of baptism for the dead. Catholicism evidently does not require Biblical support for all of its doctrines. Why should the same rules not apply with respect to Mormonism?

"And you, Capernaum, who are exalted to the heavens, will be brought down to Hades..." Matthew 11:23; "And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off..." Luke 16:23 "Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell?" Matthew 23:33; "But whoever says 'You fool!' shall be in danger of hell fire." Matthew 5:22; "And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." Matthew 10:28 Does this really sound like some neutral waiting ground to you?
No, these references to Hell do not sound like some neutral waiting ground. They refer to the place that will be the ultimate destination of the wicked, but no one will be condemned to this state until after the last judgment. Hades, as used in Matthew 16 refers to a place that more closely resembles the Catholic Purgatory (a belief I suspect originated with this waiting ground). It’s certainly not Paradise, but it’s not a place of eternal torment either. Unless I’m mistaken, all (or at least most people) are believed to spend at least some time in Purgatory prior to being admitted to Heaven.

The Catholic Church opposes the practice, most obviously, because she sees it as heretical and not part of Church Tradition. It is not and has never been a part of Church teaching. It was an innovation by the Mormon church.

Here the Latter-day Saint belief in a universal apostasy must enter into my argument. I understand that you categorically reject the fact that this “falling away” took place. Hence, you will find my examples unsatisfactory. With that in mind…

The Marcionites definitely were among some of the early Christians who practiced baptism for the dead. Yes, they were what you would call a heretical sect. We would also call them a heretical sect. However, since we believe the apostasy was well underway by Marcion’s time, we see this practice as a remnant of one that existed in mainstream Christianity during Paul’s time.

Another related example is found in 2 Maccabees 12:43-46. There we read that Judas Maccabaeus, the Jewish high priest and ruler offered sacrifices for the purpose of atoning for the sins of some of his dead soldiers.

Two late fourth century councils denounced the practice of baptism for the dead, proving that it was still being practiced by some orthodox Christians. One of these was the Synod of Hippo (393 A.D.); the other was the Third Council of Carthage. Not all Churches were represented at those councils, however. Among the ones that weren’t were the Mandaeans of Iraq and Iran and the Copts of Egypt. For a period of time, these groups continued the practice.

As for people that have never had the opportunity to be baptized, I leave the fate of such people in the hands of God. If they have never had the chance to hear the Gospel, nonetheless be baptized, God knows that, and I believe He will have mercy on such people. Yes, as a general rule, salvation is a requirement of baptism. However, obviously God can make exceptions to His own rules.


Well, I’ll say one thing for you Catholics. I much prefer your willingness to believe that God will deal justly with those who died without baptism than the perspective of the right-wing Protestants who simply believe that all of these souls will simply be banished to an eternity in Hell. On the other hand, Jesus never stated that “as a general rule,” baptism was a requirement for salvation. He was much more explicit than that.

John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

These two passages alone leave no doubt that baptism is an essential saving ordinance. He didn’t say, “if it’s convenient,” or “if you feel the need.” He said “Do it or be damned.”

Can God make exceptions to His own rule? He can’t if He is to remain constant and unchanging. If we can’t count on God to do as He has said He would do, what kind of a God is He? He won’t make exceptions because He doesn’t need to. He has provided a way for the requirement of baptism to be met – even for those who died without receiving it.

Consider the thief on the cross, who Jesus told, "Today you will be with Me in Paradise." (Luke 23:43), immediately after the man repented. Jesus guarantees this man Paradise, who has never been baptized, and since he's being executed, never would be baptized. Yet Jesus, who holds the keys of Death and Hades (Rev. 1:18) makes an allowance for this man to gain salvation. While baptism is a general requirement for those who are ABLE to be baptized, those who never even had the opportunity to be baptized are obviously exempt.

You’re making two assumptions here, neither of which is necessarily valid. First of all, we have absolutely no way of knowing whether the thief who hung next to Jesus on the cross had been baptized or not. The Romans were certainly not above crucifying Jews for some pretty insignificant crimes. Obviously, a great many baptized Christians are on death row today.

Finally, the fact that Jesus promised this man Paradise is beside the point. Paradise is not the same place as Heaven. If it were, Jesus would not have made two contradictory statements – (1) On this day, you will be with me in Paradise (to the thief) and (2) Touch me not, for I have not yet ascended to my Father which is in Heaven (to Mary on Easter morning). Paradise, like the Prison Christ visited during the three days His body lay in the tomb, are both parts of the Spirit World, the place where the spirits of all men go to await the resurrection. Baptism is a requirement for all mankind and no one is “exempt.” There is no need for any exemptions.

By the way, for your reference…

Shepherd of Hermas, Similitudes III, 9, 12, 16
Shepherd of Hermas, Similitudes 3 and 4
Shepherd of Hermas, Similitudes 5, 5
Shepherd of Hermas, Similitudes IX
 
Hi Squirt!

Certainly. Many commentators (I can give you references if you like) believe that Christian converts were baptized in memory or commemoration of a recently deceased believer. Others say that Christians are baptized "for the dead" in the sense that we are baptized as dead people (spiritually), and are made alive in baptism. In more than one commentary that I read on the verse when I was re-familiarizing myself with it, said that this particular phrase had an extremely wide variety of interpretations. The point being, that it is simply not possible contextually for you to emphatically declare that this verse says what Mormons would like to make it mean. The Mormon interpretation of this passage is one of many, and there is simply no reason to assume your particular view.



Yes, you're correct, the pronoun "they" is not explicitly used in the Greek. However, most English translations that I'm aware of use the pronoun "they" in English (including the one you originally quoted from yourself) because the Greek does indicate a separate group...as you said, most literal translations say "the ones being baptized" or "those who are baptized", while the rest of the passage refers to Christians as "we", etc. Also, I wouldn't presume to declare what Paul (or rather, God, speaking through Paul) would or would not say. As I indicated, the distinction between what unbelievers (and sometimes baby or heretical Christians) and mature believers do and believe is made all the time in the New Testament. Yes, Paul does obviously mention it casually. It was obviously something known to occur in Corinth at the time. However, that doesn't necesarily mean it was the CHRISTIANS that were doing the practice. If a known heretical group was performing vicarious baptisms for dead people in or near Corinth, the Corinthian Christians probably would have known about it, and Paul wouldn't need to go into a lot of detail.


You're right, Catholicism does not teach that explicit or copious Biblical references are necesary to establish the truth of a doctrine. However, Biblical support obviously helps:) . Considering that Mormon baptism for the dead has no history of acceptance in the declarations of the Church in regards to doctrine for the past 2,000 years, one's only hope in establishing such a doctrine would be to possibly find some Biblical support for it. Yet, we see that the Biblical support for this heretical teaching is nonexistant. Mormons themselves can only cite one Biblical reference to what they believe is their practice, and even then, the mention of "baptism for the dead" isn't even a command, or seen as something necesary...as we've both pointed out, it was just mentioned casually in passing.

Unfortunately, you are mistaken. Catholicism does not teach that all people go to Purgatory when they die. The Catholic Church teaches that only the saved go to Purgatory, in order to cleanse them of their remaining sin so that they will be made totally acceptable to God. The unsaved do not go to Purgatory. The reference in Matthew 16:18 to the fact that the Church will not be overcome by the "Gates of Hades" is clearly an indication that a universal Apostasy will not take place. I don't see how you can possibly interpret "gates of Hades" as Purgatory or a "waiting ground" in the "Spirit world"...how could the Church conceivably be prevailed by a "waiting ground"? Rather, it seems obvious to me, not to mention the Church for the past 2,000 years, that the reference is to the forces of darkness that war against the Church (Eph. 6:12), which include heresy. Since the Church was established by Christ as "the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15), the Church was specifically promised that it's truth (i.e., the truths revealed by God to His Church) would not be defeated. Christ promised to be with the Church always (Matt. 28:20). Yet how could Christ be with a Church in complete heresy and apostasy? Such a notion is inconceivable.

And how do you know that Marcionite baptism for the dead wasn't one the doctrines that were part of the Apostasy, while rather, the Marcionites' rejection of the Old Testament was part of the "remnant" from early Christianity? Simply because your church happens to teach the former and not the latter? Of course all churches such as yours that believe that they are the recreation of the "true church" from a "Universal Apostasy" are going to look back into history at isolated examples of minority groups that happened to believe what they teach now. Jehovah's Witnesses share some doctrines with the heretical Arians. Oneness Pentecostals share teachings with the heretical Modalists. In early Christianity, lots of Christians believed lots of things. The way doctrine was definitively asserted was in Councils and declarations of the Church itself. That way, such heretical teachings were weeded out over time, as doctrine progresses and the Church grows and adapts to changing times, cultures, and challenges. Baptism for the dead is indeed heretical, as the Church has declared.


In 2 Maccabees 12:43-46, we do indeed read of a Jewish high priest offering an "expiatory sacrifice" for some of his dead soldiers. However, notice what the text says about these soldiers: "...for if he were not expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in death. But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godliness it was a holy and pious thought." (bolding added) First of all, the soldiers who had died that Judas was praying and sacrificing for had gone to rest in godliness. They were clearly, then, saved. Thus, this passage actually falls perfectly in line with the Catholic teaching of none other than....Purgatory! Surprise, Surprise, the Deuterocanonicals contained in the Catholic Bible actually support what the Catholic Church teaches. In Purgatory, those who are saved are cleansed from their remaining sins, as I explained earlier. While the saved are in Purgatory, we on earth are encouraged to pray for them, to expediate their cleansing. However, what we DON'T see in this passage is ANYTHING about vicarious baptisms.

No, the whole reason that the councils denounced the practice was because the practice was NOT orthodox to begin with. If you're aware of how and why Church Councils were/are convened, the Church tends to address (or more specifically, clarify) doctrinal issues as they come up in the Church. With the arrival of Marcion and his heretical teachings, the Church obviously felt it necesary to address the growth of such heretical doctrines officially. Just because a few churches didn't get the memo at first doesn't invalidate the authority of the Church's declaration. By the way, you say they continued the practice for a of time...why do you suppose they stopped? Maybe because they finally DID get the memo and realized that they were in error?;)



Of course it's an essential saving ordinance, the Catholic Church teaches that it is...under most circumstances. I didn't say anything about baptism being unnecesary if it's inconvenient or if the person does not feel the need....I was referring to Christians who were never ABLE to be baptized. In such cases, the omnipotent God most certainly has the ability to forgive and save such individuals without water baptism. God created the sun and set the earth in orbit around it, and yet God can and did stop the sun from moving in the sky (See Joshua 10). God made the guidelines for the universe and He has the ability to alter them in cases where He sees it necesary.

We can count on God to be merciful and understanding, can we not? In such cases, we can count of God to be merciful to people who were never able to undergo water baptism. Yes, He has provided a way for the requirement of baptism to be met - His own divine will and mercy. We're all saved by grace, baptism simply happens to be one channel of His grace.


As far as I know, Jews were not baptized, were they? The first time we hear of anyone being baptized in the Bible is with John the Baptist, which even then was a different kind of baptism than the saving formulaic Baptism we have in the Church today. Even if he had, by some far-off chance (which I doubt, since he appears to have been a common criminal) to have been a disciple of John the Baptist and had been baptized by Him, he still hadn't received sacramental Christian baptism.

Paradise was the place of the righteous in the Old Testament (and also in the Gospels before Christ's resurrection; see Luke 16). Either way, we see that salvation is in view, and my point remains. God can choose to shed mercy and grace on individuals in outstanding circumstances where Baptism is unable to be administered.
 
Hi, Squirt!

Sorry that my last post has no quotes...it was so long I had to delete them to make room, lol! Well, the paragraphs are ordered in response to your post prior to that, so hopefully it's reasonably easy to follow. Look forward to hearing from you, God bless.

FerventGodSeeker
 
Hi, there, Squirt! I just wanted t o let you know, that I am going out of town on Friday morning, and will be gone until next Friday. So, obviously, I won't be able to respond to anything else during that time. If you don't put up your fourth post by tonight or tomorrow morning/early afternoon, I won't be able to respond until next weekend. Sorry, hope this isn't too big of an inconvenience. God bless.

FerventGodSeeker
 

Squirt

Well-Known Member
FerventGodSeeker said:
Hi, there, Squirt! I just wanted t o let you know, that I am going out of town on Friday morning, and will be gone until next Friday. So, obviously, I won't be able to respond to anything else during that time. If you don't put up your fourth post by tonight or tomorrow morning/early afternoon, I won't be able to respond until next weekend. Sorry, hope this isn't too big of an inconvenience. God bless.

FerventGodSeeker
Thanks for the heads up, GodSeeker. I am going to try to finish writing my reply and hope to post it tomorrow evening. I won't expect to hear from you until next weekend. Have a good trip. I hope it's for pleasure and not for business! Take care,

Squirt
 

Squirt

Well-Known Member
Hi, GodSeeker.

This will be the last of my four posts in this debate. I would just like to begin thanking you for the respectful and tolerant way in which you responded to my arguments. This experience was typical of what I have come to expect when debating Roman Catholics. Members of your Church are (a) strong in your convictions that your Church is God’s true Church on the earth today, (b) knowledgeable about what the scriptures say and what the doctrines of your Church are and (c) able to disagree with the LDS position without being demeaning or insulting.

Since this is my final post, I am going to try not to raise any really new issues, but to summarize my position.

In more than one commentary that I read on the verse when I was re-familiarizing myself with it, said that this particular phrase had an extremely wide variety of interpretations. The point being, that it is simply not possible contextually for you to emphatically declare that this verse says what Mormons would like to make it mean.

I realize that most of the commentaries you would likely have read would take this point of view. It is precisely because there is so little evidence for this practice that it becomes problematic. For most churches (both Catholic and Protestant), the question is not, “Can we believe what Paul said was taking place really was taking place?” but is rather “What did Paul mean by his reference to this practice?” Since there is so little to go on, most simply conclude that the doctrine must not be legitimate.

You must understand, however, that we Latter-day Saints do not base our doctrine on this passage. We base our doctrine on revelation. The revelation clarifies the verse. We didn’t simply “emphatically declare” that this passage means “what [we] would like to make it mean”; on the contrary, we emphatically declare that it means “what God told a living prophet it means.”

Just so that you will be aware, however, there are a few pretty prominent individuals outside of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who do not simply dismiss baptism for the dead as an anomalous practice that has no foundation except in heresy. One such individual is Krister Stendahl, Lutheran Bishop of Stockholm and the former dean of Harvard Divinity School. When the Encyclopedia of Mormonism was being written, one of its editors, Truman Madsen, approached Stendahl (a long-time acquaintance) and asked him to write an article on baptism for the dead in ancient Christianity. Stendahl refused. Madsen persisted, saying, "We'd really like to have you involved. Would it be possible, could I maybe write an article on the subject, just a brief little thing, and send it to you and you just make any changes you want to and you can put your name on it?" Stendahl relented and agreed to read Madsen’s article.

Madsen, however, was unprepared for what happened next. After reading Madsen’s article, Stendahl immediately responded, “This is a terrible article; it's not nearly strong enough; your case is much better than you are letting on; don't be so reticent." He ended up writing the article himself. It now appears in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism. Essentially he admitted, that “the consensus of all informed biblical exegetes is that early Christians did practice baptism for the dead and it was a rite essentially as the Mormons describe it." Paul meant what the text appears to be saying and there really aren’t as many other interpretations as most people insist on extrapolating.

Stendahl is not the only non-LDS scholar to agree that this text (1 Corinthians 15:29) should be interpreted in as straightforward a way as the Latter-day Saints do. According to the conservative Protestant work, “The First Epistle to the Corinthians” by Gordon Fee, "The normal reading of the text is that some Corinthians are being baptized, apparently vicariously, in behalf of some people who have already died. It would be fair to add that this reading is such a plain understanding of the Greek text that no one would ever have imagined the various alternatives were it not for the difficulties involved.”

As I indicated, the distinction between what unbelievers (and sometimes baby or heretical Christians) and mature believers do and believe is made all the time in the New Testament.

You are aware, then, that contrary to what many Protestants claim, Jesus did, in fact, teach certain things to a select group of mature Christians, those individuals who were spiritually ready to be able to understand doctrines that never were intended for the masses.

In John 16:12, we read of Christ‘s telling His Apostles that He had many more things to teach them that they would not at that time be ready to bear. Since this statement was made shortly before the Crucifixion, and since He had previously stated that everything He had taught “openly to the world,” it is entirely logical to assume that these teachings included those He imparted to them during His 40-day ministry after his resurrection. Granted, we have little to go on (which is to be expected if these things were to be taught only to a relative few), but in Acts 1:1-3 we are told that during this period of time, He did speak to His Apostles “of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God." This part of His ministry was not taught “openly to the world” and His words were not recorded. But even according to Catholic tradition, it is quite commonly understood that this 40-day ministry consisted primarily of His teaching those doctrines believed to be esoteric in nature.

According to Eusebius, Clement claimed that these were given (after the Resurrection) to Peter, James and John who shared them first with the rest of the Apostles and then with the Seventy. Interestingly, some knowledge of these esoteric teachings persisted into the third and fourth centuries and were even spoken of by Athanasius, who said, “We ought not then to parade the holy mysteries before the uninitiated, lest the heathen in their ignorance deride them, and the Catechumens being over-curious be offended.” (Defense Against the Arians 1:11)

The Latter-day Saints practice of baptism for the dead falls into the category of an esoteric ordinance. According to J.G. Davies, even baptism and the Eucharist were forbidden to outsiders. He points out that prior to the third century, a number of Christian writers refer to these ordinances (or sacraments) as disciplina arcani (secret discipline) and specifically note that it is because of their sacred nature, they could not be fully described. If baptism was considered an esoteric ordinance, it is certainly understandable that baptism for the dead would be. We believe that this would explain the scarcity of references to this practice in early Christian documents.

I would like very much to thank you for your willingness to debate this topic with me and for the courteous, respectful way in which you have responded to my posts. I realize that we will never see eye-to-eye on this doctrine, and that certain questions will remain unanswered as we conclude our discussion. It has, however, given me the opportunity to do some research I probably would not have undertaken otherwise. I will be watching for your final post and will look forward to other debates with you in the future.

God bless,

Squirt
 

Squirt

Well-Known Member
Well, it has been sixteen days since my concluding post, and it appears as if FerventGodSeeker has nothing more to contribute to our debate. I hereby declare myself the winner!
 
Top