Baptism For The Dead

Thinking maturely about the Christian faith

Search

// you’re reading...

Theology

Baptism For The Dead

By Rowland Croucher and others ⋅ January 5, 2003 ⋅ Post a comment

Subject: Re: Nigel: Redemption/1
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 15:43:32 +0800
From: Nigel Mitchell
Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian

Graeme,

posting wads of stuff fron your ‘files’ might make you
feel good, but it adds nothing to our conversation. Most of what
you posted is of only marginal relevance to what we were
discussing, and asswumes many extra-biblical terms (eg “Church
age”, “Tribulation saints”, etc.) which are not
part of mainstream Christian terminology. I am sure you know what
those terms mean, and they fit in with your particular ideas
about the Bible, but since I share neither your presuppositions
nor your vocabulary, they mean nothing to me.

As is often the case in your ‘files’, you go to
tortuous lengths to reverse the clear meaning of scripture; for
example:

Saint Paul wrote:   “...What will those people do who
receive baptism on behalf  of the dead? “(1Cor. 15:29)

The clear meaning of this is that some in the early Church were
baptised on behalf of the dead, and in context it is likely that
this was done because the participants believed that thereby they
could gain the benefits of Baptism posthumously for those on
behalf of whom they were Baptised.

In your ‘files’, the conclusion is that
> The dead ones are Christians who previously lived and who were
> previously baptised. In place of those who previously lived and were
> baptised are new generations, right up to the 20th century. This
> prepositional phrase, huper plus the genitive, is used to indicate the
> perpetuation of a ritual; a ritual which represents a reality at the
> ultimate triumph of God.
>
>
“For the dead”
>
1. The ordinance of baptism is perpetuated in every
> generation, it has not died out.
>
2. If there is no resurrection from the dead water baptism
> would be meaningless and would have discontinued.
>
3. For water baptism signifies the resurrection of Christ and
> our union with Him.
>
4. If there is no resurrection then baptism would not
> perpetuated from one generation to the next over many centuries.
>
5. If there was no resurrection then the practice of ritual
> baptism would have been discontinued in the first century. 

This is reading a lot into the scripture to bend it to fit your
theories. CK Barrett, in his commentary on 1 Corinthians, mentions
the theory that “the dead” in 1 Cor 15:29 refers to
previously baptised Christians, but he points out that this view,
although attractive in explaining away this difficult passage,
has no support within the text. Rather this is most likely to
be a reference to vicarious Baptism, of which Paul seems on this
occasion to have approved, but which is not a widely attested
practise except in a small number of schismatic groups.

I do agree with your comments that the view of life after death
expressed in 1 Corinthians owes more the Hellenism than to the
Hebrew view. I am a bit surprised to see you state this so
emphatically, but you are certainly correct.

One final point:
>>>> Let me state emphatically that I do not believe in a place of eternal
>>>> punishment and suffering, whether or not it is called “hell”.
>
> Well Nigel, the Bible is splattered with references to it, you must
> have a lot of pages cut out of your Bible.

Graeme, I do not cut anything out of my Bible. There are
many things in the Bible which are historically and
factually incorrect, errors which have been made in
copying and translation, addendums by copyists and
interpreters, etc. 

The Bible is far from perfect, but it is still the
scriptures of our faith, and I do not add anything to it
nor take anything away from it.

Graeme, you have not convinced me that there is no hope
for those who have died, if that was your objective. I
am sure you have convinced _you_, and perhaps you will
be content with that.
cheers
N+