Baptism on behalf of the Dead & Baptist theology

1 Corinthians 15:29. Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?

"The word “baptism” is often used to refer to suffering and afflictions (see Luke 12:50 and Mark 10:38-39). So Christians are suffering for the dead. That’s a very Catholic thought that suggests that the dead can be affected by our prayers and sufferings." (Not we don't believe you can be saved or unsaved that is already determined)

So how does Baptism on behalf of the dead fit into Baptist theology or is it just ignored because it doesn't.

1 Corinthians 3:11-15. For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble – each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.

"When we pray for the dead, we pray for those who are suffering loss, who are saved, but only through fire."

[ April 13, 2005, 08:35 AM: Message edited by: Born Again Catholic ]

I should carify that there is no official Church interpretation of 1Cor 15:29, but that I was offering a private opinion which fits with Catholic teaching and the literal meaning of the scriptures. So how do Baptists interpret this passage admitedly it is a difficult one.

ICor. 15:29, KJV, "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? (These are rhetorical questions with negative answers. i.e. we are not baptized for the dead).

Note: the punctuation changes the whole sense of the passage. There is no punctuation in the original manuscripts.

Baptizing "for the dead" or by proxy is a practice which comes out of the Mormon Temple in Salt Lake City, Utah. It is a "salvation by works" practice which is completely contrary to the plain teaching of the Word of God.

All interpretations of scripture must harmonize to be a doctrine of God. Try to harmonize baptizing for the dead with Ephesians 2:8-10. There is no harmony.

Selah,

Bro. James

Another interpretation is using "For the dead" as in "in view of the teaching about the Dead". In other words if it is true that the dead are not raised then Christ was not raised "Because the dead are not raised" and if that is true - then why would anyone be baptized since the dead are not raised?

"For" as in "in view of the proposed fact" that the dead are not raised.

However if we ignore that - -then ...

So how does Baptism on behalf of the dead fit into Baptist theology or is it just ignored because it doesn't.

Click to expand...

This has become a mainstay for the Mormons who DO confine themselves to believers baptism but ALSO promote the error of baptizing themselves "FOR" dead ancestors.

Kinda like the way our Catholic bretheren pray to their dead ancestors.

In Christ,

Bob

James, the Scripture as you rewrote it makes no sense. I've looked at several different translations of the verse, including the KJV, NASB, NIV, and Young's Literal Translation, and the fact that Paul repeats the phrase kind of negates this midsentence-question idea.

There was, indeed, no punctuation in the original manuscripts, thus the conservative interpreter must read the Scripture in the way that all the translators I've seen have interpreted it.

An instructive quote from Born Again Catholic is this:

Not we don't believe you can be saved or unsaved that is already determined

Click to expand...

I'm not at all someone who "believes" in praying for the dead; my interpretation of Scripture lends itself to a belief that once someone passes on, they are at the Judgement. Still and yet, I have to acknowledge that B.A.C. might be on to something.

1 Corinthians 3:11-15. For no other foundation (PETRA) can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble – each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.[/b]

Click to expand...

1. Notice that fire is to test and SEE IF the work (not the person) is of quality.

2. Notice that this NOT the RC case of FIRST finding the person to be in want/error/debt AND THEN punishing/tormenting with fire in proportion to the DEBT ALREADY evaluated with its punishment/torment assigned. RATHER EVERY evangelist's WORK is TESTED (even Paul's) by fire. This is NOT a claim that ALL evangelists go to purgatory -- but it WOULD become that if the RC attempt to Eisegete Purgatory INTO the text -- were successful.

Born again Cath
"When we pray for the dead, we pray for those who are suffering loss, who are saved, but only through fire."

Click to expand...

1. The PERSON is not tormented according to the text - their WORK is TESTED.

2. The PERSON is the BUILDER - the EVANGELIST building on the fOUNDATION (Petra) that is Christ alone. The MATERIAL is the thing that is TESTED by fire - NOT the Person.

In the RC teaching it is the PERSON that goes to purgatory NOT the WORK they did IN The church TEACHING on the ONE foundation - Christ.

This text is totally unsuitable for the RC usage - but the RCC likes to snippet from it - because without actually reading the chapter it "appears" to be useful to them.

In Christ,

Bob

Being baptized for the dead was and still is a pagan practice. The passage in 1 Cor. shows that even the pagans believed in a resurrection.

If you argue that the 1Cor 15 statement is an appeal to paganism -- then it is a weak point for compelling doctrine with Christians. It would mean that Paul is appealing to the Pagan practice and saying that the Pagans must have a CORRECT understanding of the resurrection to even practice their ERROR of baptism for the dead.

That kind of "pagans must have correct theology or their pagan practices would be inconsistent" - style argument could never work.

In Christ,

Bob

Originally posted by tragic_pizza:
What's interesting to me is that the Catechism segment Living posted on the sacrament of baptism appears to point the baptizee (and the family and parish, I suppose) to a dependence on God (identified as the Trinity) for direction and spiritual growth.

Click to expand...

Indeed it does. In fact it specifically speaks to the FAITH of the one RECEIVING the sacrament as the factor - NOT on any power of the priest or the water.

All of which is perfectly denied by their practice AND history when they baptize infants and then created the "Sacred Clergy" with POWERS to "Mark the Soul" for salvation APART from the FAITH of the one recieving the ordinance, or scripture being heard and believed.

TP
While the Baptist ordinance of baptism acknowledges the remission of sins (a rule you keep remits sins? Fascinating!), it points the baptizee to a walk fully fueled by his or her own willpower and authority - God is almost a secondary player as far as I could read.

Click to expand...

I am not sure what the one Baptist view would be since there are both Calvinist and Arminian Baptists. However I think it is safe to conclude that they all agree that there is no magic power taking place in the water, or marking the soul, or "powers of the priest to forgive" or to "mark the soul" etc..

I think the Baptist view is the Biblical model of having someone HEAR and believe and RECEIVE - following on in obedience (Walking as Christ walked 1John 2) in the new creation, the new birth.

In Christ,

Bob

The words.. "THE DEAD" do not refer to an individual but to all who have ever died. I think if you read the chapter, thats the impression that you get, that it means everyone who has died. Quite a few seminary professors have told us this. Baptism for the dead... remember in I Peter 3:21... Baptism is looked upon as being a figure of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. When we baptize people, we tell them its a picture of that same thing, and I think this is the point of the passage. If there is no resurrection, why baptism? That, i think is the point. Can't say I am 100% sure, but seems to be the issue here.

I agree it is a generic statement about the state of the dead and the idea that the dead either can or can not be resurrected.

It makes no reference to one's ancestor dying and then needing to have a descendant be "baptized for them".

It is an argument about the entire concept of resurrection - (whether one is a saint or the wicked) and the impact of that topic on the doctrine of Baptism. It argues that the entire doctrine of Baptism REQUIRES that resurrection be a true doctrine because IF there is no resurrection then CHRIST is not resurrected!

In that case - what is the point of being baptized in view of the fact that the dead can not be resurrected, in view of the implication that has on the resurrection of Christ.

In Christ,

Bob

i agree, bob