Posted on 11/09/2007 9:25:22 PM PST by restornu
Only an ignorant blind sycophant would enthusiastically endorse such a stupid, uneducated, apologetic foolishness as Grig’s post. Congratulations! You’ve set aside the other 99.99999% of the New Testament in order to kiss heresy’s glittering butt.
Required for entrance to Purgatory? Personal question for Cathloic Freepers.
(Protestant) Minister Who Had Near-Death Episode Believes In Purgatory
Straight Answers: What Is Purgatory Like?
Do Catholics Believe in Purgatory?
Purgatory, Indulgences, and the Work of Jesus Christ (Discussion)
Prayer to Release the Souls of Purgatory
Trumbower’s book is simply an additional non-LDS theologian/scholar’s conclusion in a long list of others who have reached similar conclusions that early Christianity practiced vicarious baptism for the dead.
MHGINTN continues his ad hominem attacks and ignores the thoughtful writings of numerous non-LDS scholars and theologians who acknowledge this practice by early Christians.
Rather than substantively respond, he simply resorts to the usual ad hominems. It really is sad. Jesus taught that you cannot pour new wine into old bottles. And so it is with MHGINTN. He is too steeped in the traditions and creeds of men to have an open mind to discuss this practice among early Christians.
Below is a sampling of MANY Protestant and Catholic Bible scholars/theologians who have discussed 1 Cor. 15:29 and admit that it, indeed, is an acknowledgement by Paul that vicarious baptisms for the dead were being performed by the early Christians in Corinth.
“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.’’(Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1989, pp. 763-64.)
“Again, the Apostle alludes to a practice of the Corinthian community as evidence for a Christian faith in the resurrection of the dead. It seems that in Corinth some Christians would undergo baptism in the name of their deceased non-Christian relatives and friends, hoping that this vicarious baptism might assure them a share in the redemption of Christ.’’ (From The Jerome Biblical Commentary, ed. Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, and Roland E. Murphy, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1968, 2:273.)
“St. Paul then, almost in parenthesis, touches on what appears to have been a custom among the Corinthian Christians of baptizing by proxy on behalf of some, presumably members of the same family, who had died unbaptized and might therefore, it was thought, miss their chance of being incorporated into the fulness of Christ’s Kingdom at his Advent. This practice, says the apostle, makes as little sense as his own daily contempt for physical death, if there is no resurrection.” (William Neil, One Volume Commentary On The Bible, London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1973, p. 461)
“After sketching briefly the drama of the end, Paul resumes his attack on those denying the possibility of man’s resurrection. Scribes and commentators have sought to avoid translating vs. 29 as in the RSV, since it is difficult to think that Paul would approve of baptism by proxy. But at this place he is throwing up questions to expose the illogical nature of the beliefs and practices of those denying the resurrection, and he withholds his personal judgment of baptism on behalf of the dead.” (The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary on the Bible, Nashville: The Abingdon Press, 1971, p. 811)
“. . . the most natural meaning of the expression [used by Paul in 1 Cor. 15:29] is that some early believers got themselves baptized on behalf of friends of theirs who had died without receiving that sacrament.” (Leon Morris, The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, London: Tyndale Press, 1964, p. 218)
“Close inspection of the language of the reference makes all attempts to soften or eliminate its literal meaning unsuccessful. An endeavor to understand the dead as persons who are “dead in sin” does not really help; for the condition offered, if the dead are not being raised at all, makes it clear that the apostle is writing about persons who are physically dead. It appears that under the pressure of concern for the eternal destiny of dead relatives or friends some people in the church were undergoing baptism on their behalf in the belief that this would enable the dead to receive the benefits of Christ’s salvation.” (James Moulten and George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1981, p. 651, original emphasis)
“Here Paul returns to his argument for the resurrection of the dead. There is a special difficulty in understanding v. 29 because we do not know the background of the words “baptized for the dead.” There are many interpretations, but it is difficult to find a satisfactory one. The present tense “baptize” suggests that the practice of baptizing for the dead was current and evidently well known to the Corinthians. . . .
. . . its [”huper’s”, the Greek word behind “for” in “baptized for the dead”] basic meaning with the genitive is “for,” “in behalf of,” or “in the place of.”
According to [H. A. W.] Meyer, this verse means that believers already baptized were rebaptized for the benefit of believers who had died unbaptized. This was done on the assumption that it would count for the unbaptized dead and thereby assure their resurrection along with the baptized, living believers. . . .
At any rate, Paul simply mentions the superstitious custom without approving it and uses it to fortify his argument that there is a resurrection from the dead. (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976, vol. 10, pp. 287-288)
“. . . whatever doubt some members of the Church had concerning it, there were others who were such firm believers in the resurrection that they submitted to this rite of vicarious baptism on behalf of certain of their brethren, probably catechumens, who had passed away before they had been baptized and received into full membership of the Church.” (The Interpreter’s Bible, New York: The Abingdon Press, 1952-1957, vol. 10, p. 240)
In any event, I would excpect that all those whose minds aren’t dogmatically closed may find it an interesting read.
I’m shocked, shocked to find a non-Mormon that doesn’t believe our doctrine! :-)
[excerpted from http://www.irr.org/mit/baptdead.html ]
The fact that Paul’s mention of baptism for the dead is not an endorsement is signaled by the impersonal manner in which he refers to the practitioners: “Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? Why then are they baptized for the dead?” If the rite was a legitimate part of apostolic teaching, we might have expected the apostle to say “what shall you do . . .” or “what shall we do . . .”
Paul does elsewhere use something with which he disagrees to make a theological point. In 1 Corinthians 8:10 the apostle refers to eating meat in an idol’s temple without showing it to be wrong in itself; however, that he believed it is wrong is clear from what he says later in 1 Corinthians 10:21.
It is clear from Romans 9:1-3 and 10:1-4 that Paul was acutely conscious that many among his own Jewish kinsmen were outside the gospel fold. He speaks of having “great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart” for his Hebrew brethren (9:2), and declares that “my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved” (10:1). Certainly there would have been some from the apostle’s own extended family who had gone to their graves unbaptized. If Paul taught baptism for the dead, it is inexplicable that he would exclude himself from those who practiced the rite, as he surely does when he writes, “what shall they do which are baptized for the dead . . .”
Notice too that in verses 30-32 the apostle immediately contrasts the fringe group practicing baptism for the dead with himself and the broader Christian community: “And why stand we in jeopardy every hour . . . what advantageth it me if the dead rise not.” Indeed, the impersonal “they” contrasts markedly with Paul’s practice throughout 1 Corinthians 15, where he consistently addresses his readers as “you” (vv. 1,2,3,11,12,14,17,31,34,36,51,58), or, (including himself) “we” or “us” (vv. 3,15,19,30,32,49,51,52).
If we ask who the “they” in verse 29 refers to, the context clearly points us back to verse 12. It is those within the Corinthian congregation who are denying the resurrection, and whom the entire passage is written to refute. Then the biting aspect of Paul’s argument becomes clear. These false teachers are inconsistent: they deny the resurrection, yet engage in a practice — baptism for the dead — which is based on the hope of resurrection.
This is exactly the understanding of the text held by the early Christian writer Tertullian. Writing about A.D. 180, he makes this comment on 1 Corinthians 15:29 — “His [Paul’s] only aim in alluding to it was that he might all the more firmly insist upon the resurrection of the body, in proportion as they who were vainly baptized for the dead resorted to the practice from their belief of such a resurrection.”
Ironically, the Encyclopedia of Mormonism espouses this same interpretation of the verse: “. . . Paul clearly refers to a distinct group within the Church, a group that he accuses of inconsistency between ritual and doctrine.”
Thus, far from endorsing the baptism for the dead, Paul associates it with a group whom he has already identified as being in deep spiritual error.
Ping for your reference, LC.
Explain what you mean by merit?
I appreciate your thoughtful post. Your references will make a good contribution to my studies in this area.
I cite a significant number of non-LDS scholars/theologians who acknowledge the practice by early Corinthians of vicariously baptizing their dead and you cite an internet article from an anti-Mormon “Mormons in Transition” website. LOL.
You mean as a Mormon you didn’t have access to these resources from a Mormon Apologist? I’m shock! Shocked I tell ya!
You have nothing original all you stuff comes from fear!
Bwahahahaha ... after several months, this is the depth of your understanding. Nice.
Thanks for the ad hominem attack. Sadly, as I stated, your bottle is filled with the doctrines and creeds of man and your are dogmatically unable to consider this matter with an open mind; else, you shall burst.
Your welcome. Hopefully others with an open mind will feel the same.
You are, at time, amusing. LOL
I’m glad the truth amuses you. Best wishes and have a wonderful Sunday.
You can Bwahahahaha all you want but you have not shown faith only doubt and fear!
All your posting are depended upon others at no time have I seen you claim a witness from the Holy Spirit!
When you quote it is based upon others words, but nothing coming from your soul!
We come to know as we do.
Do the will of the Lord and you will know his doctrine.
You receive no witness until after the trial of you faith!
It is almost —ALMOST— amusing to heaqr a Mormon denigrate doctrines of men, given that your heretical religion is entirely built upon the dictates of your fabricating, adulterous, peepstone prophet, Joseph Smith. Where do you get support from the B of M for the Smithism doctrine of polyagmy? The B of M calls it an abomination! Bwahahahaha
Do you use the twelve sided die or the thirty-two sided die to make these posts?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.