Baptism For The Dead (1 Corinthians 15:29)

[JFish123]

The dead are already dead, they cannot choose Christ after death nor anyone else cannot make a choice for christ on their behalf. You live once and then the judgment

 

[Nietzsche]

I'm trying to figure this out. Unless I'm mistaken, you are an atheist, and don't believe in life after death at all. In other words, when you die, that's it. There's no consciousness, nothing.

Not an atheist.

(I'm open to correction if I've misspoken.) If that's the case, how is it that a dead person can be insulted?

Heathen. North-Germanic paganism. While I'm not sold(nor do I think I ever will be) on the idea that there exists something after death, I respect it as part of the traditions, and I would rather do my best as if it is true, if only because I will know.

 

[Nietzsche]

Well, you really don't need to worry since -- unless your grandfather has a Mormon descendant -- nobody's going to be baptized without his next of kin's consent for at least 100 years after the fact. Now if you've got an LDS cousin who wants to be baptized for your grandfather, that's a different matter.

I am kind of curious about one thing, though. How far back is this an issue for you? You're opposed to the practice being performed for your grandfather. What about your great, great, great, great, great grandfather? How about your 30th great-grandfather? Is there a point at which it no longer matters to you?

For me personally?

That's an interesting genealogical argument. Problem is, I can tell you who my 30th-power-great-grandfather is(of course I can..). I'd still prefer you didn't, but I also recognize logistic problems, namely we don't know how many surviving great-grand-children there would be, and how exactly you decide who's the most-related, or the most-direct descendent.

Jesus christ, can you imagine trying to figure this out? It's a nightmarish hell of paperwork and relatives you probably loathe..

Which suddenly sounds a lot like Judaism, really.

 

[arthra]

Wikipedia had a fairly good article on the issue of "proxy baptism" which noted the offensiveness of the practise to some people and I can understand the point they're making...

The LDS Church performs vicarious baptisms for individuals regardless of their race, sex, creed, religion, or morality.[citation needed] Some members of the LDS Church have been baptized for both victims and perpetrators of the Holocaust, including Anne Frank and Adolf Hitler, contrary to church policy.[55] Some Jewish Holocaust survivors and some Jewish organizations have objected to this practice.

Since the early 1990s, the LDS Church has urged members to submit the names of only their own ancestors for ordinances, and to request permission of surviving family members of people who have died within the past 95 years.[56] Hundreds of thousands of improperly submitted names not adhering to this policy have been removed from the records of the church.[57]

and

Jewish groups, including the Simon Wiesenthal Center, spoke out against the vicarious baptism of Holocaust perpetrators and victims in the mid-1990s and again in the 2000s when they discovered the practice, which they consider insensitive to the living and the dead, was continuing.[64][65] The associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, Abraham Cooper, complained that infamous figures such as Adolf Hitler and Eva Braun appeared on LDS genealogical records: "Whether official or not, the fact remains that this is exactly the kind of activity that enraged and hurt, really, so many victims of the Holocaust and caused alarm in the Jewish community."[49][66]

Baptism for the dead - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In my case I don't really have an issue with proxy baptism as I feel baptism is more of a spiritual experience than it is a ritual needing a officiant. Baha'is don't have a rite of baptism as such...

"The performance of baptismal celebration would cleanse the body, but the spirit hath no share; but the divine teachings and the exhortations of the Beauty of Abha will baptize the soul. This is the real baptism. I hope that thou wilt receive this baptism."

~ Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 390

In my family most were baptized anyway by being Brethren or Baptists... It may be difficult to believe this today but back around early eighteenth century it was apparently illegal to be baptized after you had received infant baptism.

 

[Norman]

The dead are already dead, they cannot choose Christ after death nor anyone else cannot make a choice for christ on their behalf. You live once and then the judgment

Norman: Hi JFish123, could you please list sources to support your opinion?

 

[Norman]

Wikipedia had a fairly good article on the issue of "proxy baptism" which noted the offensiveness of the practise to some people and I can understand the point they're making...

The LDS Church performs vicarious baptisms for individuals regardless of their race, sex, creed, religion, or morality.[citation needed] Some members of the LDS Church have been baptized for both victims and perpetrators of the Holocaust, including Anne Frank and Adolf Hitler, contrary to church policy.[55] Some Jewish Holocaust survivors and some Jewish organizations have objected to this practice.

Norman: Hi arthra, I would like to response to the Wikipedia article that you posted. Doing family history work is a tedious and timely effort, I have been doing it for years. However, with technology it has made this endeavor a lot more easer to do. Adolf Hitler would be in some one's family line, that is just the facts when you do family history. This can and is a very sensitive issue at hand.

Since the early 1990s, the LDS Church has urged members to submit the names of only their own ancestors for ordinances, and to request permission of surviving family members of people who have died within the past 95 years.[56] Hundreds of thousands of improperly submitted names not adhering to this policy have been removed from the records of the church.[57]

and

Jewish groups, including the Simon Wiesenthal Center, spoke out against the vicarious baptism of Holocaust perpetrators and victims in the mid-1990s and again in the 2000s when they discovered the practice, which they consider insensitive to the living and the dead, was continuing.[64][65] The associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, Abraham Cooper, complained that infamous figures such as Adolf Hitler and Eva Braun appeared on LDS genealogical records: "Whether official or not, the fact remains that this is exactly the kind of activity that enraged and hurt, really, so many victims of the Holocaust and caused alarm in the Jewish community."[49][66]

Norman: Although the Church believes everyone must ultimately have the opportunity to receive the sacraments of salvation, Church members are encouraged to request temple baptism only on behalf of their relatives. However, well-meaning Church members sometimes bypass this instruction and submit the names of non-relatives for temple baptism. Others — perhaps pranksters or careless persons — have submitted the names of unrelated famous or infamous people, or even wholly fictitious names. These rare acts are contrary to Church policy and sometimes cause pain and embarrassment. They are also extremely difficult to prevent because the temple baptism process depends on voluntary compliance by millions of Church members around the world. The Church nearly always learns about problems after the fact.
Unfortunately, some of the names inappropriately submitted for temple baptism have been Jewish Holocaust victims who were not relatives of Church members. In the early 1990s, the leaders of a number of Jewish organizations approached the Church about the issue. The Church has always had the deepest respect for the Jewish people and close relations with many Jewish groups. In 1995, in a spirit of brotherhood and accommodation, the Church identified a number of measures to address the problem. Leadership of the American Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors agreed these measures would be sufficient to satisfy their concerns and that they would use their best efforts to persuade other Jewish organizations as to their sufficiency. Many subsequent meetings and discussions have been held to clarify positions, explain the Church’s efforts, and address issues. The Church has worked diligently and at significant expense to do what it said it would do.

In my situation arthra I come from a long line of Jews going back to Poland and Russia. I also had family members who were killed in the Auschwitz camp near Krakow, Poland. So, I have a right to the holocaust list from that camp where 1.1 million Jews were killed. I have accessed that list and have identified relatives that were killed there. This was not an easy task, for years I compiled information from other family members who are since deceased to trace these family members. I mention this so that yourself and other's can fully understand both sides of the story in relation to baptism for the dead.


Baptism for the dead - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In my case I don't really have an issue with proxy baptism as I feel baptism is more of a spiritual experience than it is a ritual needing a officiant. Baha'is don't have a rite of baptism as such...

"The performance of baptismal celebration would cleanse the body, but the spirit hath no share; but the divine teachings and the exhortations of the Beauty of Abha will baptize the soul. This is the real baptism. I hope that thou wilt receive this baptism."

~ Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 390

In my family most were baptized anyway by being Brethren or Baptists... It may be difficult to believe this today but back around early eighteenth century it was apparently illegal to be baptized after you had received infant baptism.

Norman: Hi arthra, thank you for sharing your belief's on baptism for the dead, of which the OP is all about.

 

[zomg]

Ah, baptisms for the dead. Where old men get to see teenage boys and girls wearing white, clingy jump suits get soaking wet.

 

[LASTINGLIGHT]

In other words, you couldn't care less?

It means exactly what it says. Superstitions of the past. No explaination needed.

 

[Scott C.]

I get that baptism for the dead offends some people. This is why my church has rules on what names can be submitted for baptism. Personally, I would be flattered if someone cared enough about me to perform an act in my behalf after I pass on. I feel this way, even if I believe the act has no impact on me.

 

[zomg]

Don't forget you can also do this

All Dead Mormons Are Now Gay

 

[Katzpur]

People, particularly Mormons, believe in Baptism for the dead. They quote 1Corinthians:
"Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?" (1 Cor. 15:29, NASB)
In verses 1-19, the fact of Christ's resurrection is detailed by Paul. Beginning in verse 20 and going through verse 23, Paul speaks about the order of the resurrection. Christ was the first one raised--in a glorified body--and next will be those who are His at His return. Verses 24-29 then mention Christ's reign and the abolition of death. This is when this controversial verse occurs: "Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?"
Just north of Corinth was a city named Eleusis. This was the location of a pagan religion where baptism in the sea was practiced to guarantee a good afterlife. This religion was mentioned by Homer in Hymn to Demeter 478-79.1 The Corinthians were known to be heavily influenced by other customs. After all, they were in a large economic area where a great many different people frequented. It is probable that the Corinthians were being influenced by the religious practices found at Eleusis where baptism for the dead was practiced.
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."
This is significant because the Christian church was not practicing baptism for the dead, but the pagans were.
Paul's point was simple. The resurrection is a reality. It is going to happen when Jesus returns. Even the pagans believe in the resurrection; otherwise, why would THEY baptize for the dead?
You only have one life to choose Christ:
"And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment..." - Hebrews 9:27
So we must choose wisely and not wait, for waiting might be too late.

If you were going to try to convince someone of something you believed to be true, would you cite a practice you believed to be heretical in order to support your position? For example, would you say, "The resurrection is a fact. Otherwise, Mormons would not perform baptisms for the dead"? I doubt it very much. It would actually be ridiculous for you to say something like that, just as it would have been ridiculous for Paul to have mentioned a practice he felt to be heretical in support of something he believed in. Furthermore, it was not only the saints at Corinth who were performing proxy baptisms. The practice continued in certain orthodox Christian churches until the practice was formally discontinued as a result of decisions made by two late fourth century councils (the Synod of Hippo and the Third Council of Carthage). The monophysitic church of Egypt was not represented at these minor councils and consequently chose not to discontinue the practice.

I am curious as what you believe happens to the unbaptized. Do you believe that baptism is required for salvation or not? I know there is some disagreement among the various Christian denominations on this subject, so I would like to know what your own beliefs are.

 

[JFish123]

If you were going to try to convince someone of something you believed to be true, would you cite a practice you believed to be heretical in order to support your position? For example, would you say, "The resurrection is a fact. Otherwise, Mormons would not perform baptisms for the dead"? I doubt it very much. It would actually be ridiculous for you to say something like that, just as it would have been ridiculous for Paul to have mentioned a practice he felt to be heretical in support of something he believed in. Furthermore, it was not only the saints at Corinth who were performing proxy baptisms. The practice continued in certain orthodox Christian churches until the practice was formally discontinued as a result of decisions made by two late fourth century councils (the Synod of Hippo and the Third Council of Carthage). The monophysitic church of Egypt was not represented at these minor councils and consequently chose not to discontinue the practice.

I am curious as what you believe happens to the unbaptized. Do you believe that baptism is required for salvation or not? I know there is some disagreement among the various Christian denominations on this subject, so I would like to know what your own beliefs are.

Baptism is such a vital part of discipleship that Jesus included it in the Great Commission: we are to “make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19). Although a person’s sins are forgiven based on faith in Jesus alone, baptism is an important symbol of death to our old way of living and a new beginning in Christ.
For if the meaning of baptism could be boiled down to one word, that word would be "identification." It would be like a wedding ring symbolizing to whom you belong. You'd still be married to the person without it, but you wear it out of love and commitment to them, showing the world to whom you are with. The same is for baptism. You are still saved without it, for by faith you are saved, but doing it, shows your commitment and love for God through Jesus Christ. It is also a command of Christ, so every Christian should follow.
The Biblical Case:
If water baptism were necessary for salvation, we would expect to find it stressed whenever the gospel is presented in Scripture. That is not the case, however. Peter mentioned baptism in his sermon on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38). However, in his sermon from Solomon’s portico in the Temple (Acts 3:12-26), Peter makes no reference to baptism, but links forgiveness of sin to repentance (3:19). If baptism is necessary for the forgiveness of sin, why didn’t Peter say so in Acts 3?
Paul never made water baptism any part of his gospel presentations. In 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Paul gives a concise summary of the gospel message he preached. There is no mention of baptism. In 1 Corinthians 1:17, Paul states that “Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel,” thus clearly differentiating the gospel from baptism.
Those passages are difficult to understand if water baptism is necessary for salvation. If baptism were part of the gospel itself, necessary for salvation, what good would it have done Paul to preach the gospel, but not baptize? No one would have been saved. Paul clearly understood water baptism to be separate from the gospel, and hence in no way efficacious for salvation.
Perhaps the most convincing refutation of the view that baptism is necessary for salvation are those who were saved apart from baptism. The penitent woman (Luke 7:37-50), the paralytic man (Matthew 9:2), the publican (Luke 18:13-14), and the thief on the cross (Luke 23:39-43) all experienced forgiveness of sins apart from baptism. For that matter, we have no record of the apostles’ being baptized, yet Jesus pronounced them clean of their sins (John 15:3—note that the Word of God, not baptism, is what cleansed them).
The Bible also gives us an example of people who were saved before being baptized. In Acts 10:44-48, Cornelius and those with him were converted through Peter’s message. That they were saved before being baptized is evident from their reception of the Holy Spirit (v. 44) and the gifts of the Spirit (v. 46) before their baptism. Indeed, it is the fact that they had received the Holy Spirit (and hence were saved) that led Peter to baptize them (v.47).
Water baptism is certainly important, and required of every believer. However, the New Testament does not teach that baptism is necessary for salvation.

 

[Scott C.]

Don't forget you can also do this

All Dead Mormons Are Now Gay

I like to think of myself as a guy with a sense of humor. But this is dumb. The button should say, "Push here for [insert dead Mormon's name], if you want [name] to be offered one last chance to change his mind and to become gay. But remember, the choice lies entirely with [name] so don't be disappointed if he rejects the offer."

If you out live me, you may push the button in my behalf. I suspect the button will not be recognized in heaven and will therefore have no impact on me. However, if after I die, I learn that only gay people have eternal joy in heaven, I'll be happy that you pushed the button in my behalf, and I'll accept the opportunity to convert.

 

[Thanda]

The dead are already dead, they cannot choose Christ after death nor anyone else cannot make a choice for christ on their behalf. You live once and then the judgment

So those who never heard of Christ are doomed?

 

[JFish123]

So those who never heard of Christ are doomed?

The Bible is clear that apart from Christ, you can't go to heaven. Jesus said, "No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6).
How does this apply to someone who never hears the gospel? The Bible says, "The truth about God is known to them instinctively. God has put this knowledge in their hearts. From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God" (Romans 1:19-20, New Living Translation).
No one has an excuse for not knowing God. That knowledge comes to us naturally—much like the way we instinctively reach for water when we're thirsty. It's not something we have to learn.
And it's not just instinct that draws people to God. God uses visual aids too—his creation. We can see God through the divine design of nature.
When someone responds to these instincts and "visual aids" and truly reaches out to God, God will make sure that person understands his or her need for Christ. God, who loves us beyond comprehension and wants everyone to go to heaven (2 Peter 3:9), will arrange the details for that person to know the gospel—through a missionary, a tract, a Bible, whatever.
You might think, But what if a missionary never visits that island, or a tract never falls into those hands. What then? If those things never happen, we can be assured that God, who is loving and just, is still in control. God is sovereign, and he will always do what is right.
God is an awesome God, and nothing will stop him from getting the good news to even the most remote parts of the world, "to the ends of the earth" (Acts 1:8). And as if to prove it, God even gave John a glimpse of heaven, where he saw people "from every tribe and language and people from every nation" (Revelation 5:9).
The bottom line: God is obviously able to reveal the truth about himself to anyone, anywhere. But he often uses us to do it. That's why Jesus' last words to us were instructions to tell everyone, everywhere, the good news of God's love (Matthew 28:19-20).

 

[psychoslice]

Baptism is a personal experience, when we change from our old self the carnal self, to our true inner SELF, no one at all can ever do this for us, to do so is nothing more than a cheap belief.

 

[Katzpur]

Baptism is such a vital part of discipleship that Jesus included it in the Great Commission: we are to “make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19). Although a person’s sins are forgiven based on faith in Jesus alone, baptism is an important symbol of death to our old way of living and a new beginning in Christ.
For if the meaning of baptism could be boiled down to one word, that word would be "identification." It would be like a wedding ring symbolizing to whom you belong. You'd still be married to the person without it, but you wear it out of love and commitment to them, showing the world to whom you are with. The same is for baptism. You are still saved without it, for by faith you are saved, but doing it, shows your commitment and love for God through Jesus Christ. It is also a command of Christ, so every Christian should follow.
The Biblical Case:
If water baptism were necessary for salvation, we would expect to find it stressed whenever the gospel is presented in Scripture. That is not the case, however. Peter mentioned baptism in his sermon on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38). However, in his sermon from Solomon’s portico in the Temple (Acts 3:12-26), Peter makes no reference to baptism, but links forgiveness of sin to repentance (3:19). If baptism is necessary for the forgiveness of sin, why didn’t Peter say so in Acts 3?
Paul never made water baptism any part of his gospel presentations. In 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Paul gives a concise summary of the gospel message he preached. There is no mention of baptism. In 1 Corinthians 1:17, Paul states that “Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel,” thus clearly differentiating the gospel from baptism.
Those passages are difficult to understand if water baptism is necessary for salvation. If baptism were part of the gospel itself, necessary for salvation, what good would it have done Paul to preach the gospel, but not baptize? No one would have been saved. Paul clearly understood water baptism to be separate from the gospel, and hence in no way efficacious for salvation.
Perhaps the most convincing refutation of the view that baptism is necessary for salvation are those who were saved apart from baptism. The penitent woman (Luke 7:37-50), the paralytic man (Matthew 9:2), the publican (Luke 18:13-14), and the thief on the cross (Luke 23:39-43) all experienced forgiveness of sins apart from baptism. For that matter, we have no record of the apostles’ being baptized, yet Jesus pronounced them clean of their sins (John 15:3—note that the Word of God, not baptism, is what cleansed them).
The Bible also gives us an example of people who were saved before being baptized. In Acts 10:44-48, Cornelius and those with him were converted through Peter’s message. That they were saved before being baptized is evident from their reception of the Holy Spirit (v. 44) and the gifts of the Spirit (v. 46) before their baptism. Indeed, it is the fact that they had received the Holy Spirit (and hence were saved) that led Peter to baptize them (v.47).
Water baptism is certainly important, and required of every believer. However, the New Testament does not teach that baptism is necessary for salvation.

You can jump through hoops all day long trying to justify not getting baptized (and you've done a fairly decent job of that), but the fact remains that baptism is a commandment, not a suggestion. The fact that the Bible does not specifically mention by name every one of the individuals we know believed the words of Jesus Christ means absolutely nothing.

 

[Katzpur]

The Bible is clear that apart from Christ, you can't go to heaven. Jesus said, "No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6).
How does this apply to someone who never hears the gospel? The Bible says, "The truth about God is known to them instinctively. God has put this knowledge in their hearts. From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God" (Romans 1:19-20, New Living Translation).
No one has an excuse for not knowing God. That knowledge comes to us naturally—much like the way we instinctively reach for water when we're thirsty. It's not something we have to learn.

Seriously? Are you saying that everyone in the world instinctively understands the gospel of Jesus Christ and can accept Him as his Savior without ever having heard His name before? So the Jews really have nothing to worry about, or the Muslims or the Hindus or anyone else who believes in God. Why on earth do you think Christ's last words to His Apostles were to teach His gospel throughout the world? And to baptize believers? If everybody already knows about Him and nobody needs to be baptized, He must just have been giving His Apostles some busy work to occupy their time. Surely this isn't what you believe. Tell me I misunderstood, and then explain to me again how some person living in an African jungle in the year 500 A.D., who had been practicing his tribe's centuries-old religion all his life, really knew all along that the Abrahamic God (whom he had never heard of) sent His Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ (whom he had never heard of) to take his sins upon Him and suffer so that he might live again after death.

 

[Katzpur]

I like to think of myself as a guy with a sense of humor. But this is dumb. The button should say, "Push here for [insert dead Mormon's name], if you want [name] to be offered one last chance to change his mind and to become gay. But remember, the choice lies entirely with [name] so don't be disappointed if he rejects the offer."

If you out live me, you may push the button in my behalf. I suspect the button will not be recognized in heaven and will therefore have no impact on me. However, if after I die, I learn that only gay people have eternal joy in heaven, I'll be happy that you pushed the button in my behalf, and I'll accept the opportunity to convert.

This quote wins the quote of the year award. Seriously.

I wish people could understand that it's only an invitation. Here's the analogy I've used in the past: Let's say I'm a huge Taylor Swift fan, but you think she has absolutely no talent at all. I have the opportunity to buy a couple of extra tickets to one of her upcoming concerts and so I do. I send them to you via snail mail and tell them they're yours to use or to throw away. You don't even need to respond to me as to what your choice was. If you decided to use the tickets and enjoyed the show, you'd probably be grateful that I'd given you that one last opportunity. If you decided to throw them away, I'd have wasted my money, but that's all. That is a pretty accurate description of how we believe baptism for the dead works.

 

[Hong Xiuquan]

Norman: Thank you for starting this thread. My following words are to be taken in a friendly, genuine fashion: I did notice references to baptism for the dead in the BOM. It sounds scary....messing with the spirits. I have wanted to discuss this topic for quite some time. I have some questions.....1. theoretically, if every family in the world had one Mormon, would it be possible that everyone could be saved because they could all be baptized, right? 2. If I didn't want to be baptized in the Mormon church after I died, you mentioned that the LDS church would respect that and not baptize me but 100 years later, another Mormon may baptize me then (is that correct?) 3. Say, for example, I'm dead, and a Mormon family member wants to baptize me, does someone in the spirit world contact me to get my consent first? 4. What happens if I'm in the spirit world and then I'm baptized in the LDS church? Sorry, these are genuine questions....I'm trying to work out how it works. I'm not into mockery even if I disagree but I do want to understand it.