In a previous post, I discussed the faulty presuppositions and arguments against baptism for the dead by Mike Thomas. In this post, I wish to address his claim about the (allegedly) scant evidence for baptism for the dead in early Christian literature, evident by the following comment:
The concept is not mentioned elsewhere in the Bible or in other early Christian documents, with two exceptions. If it had been as important or as frequent a part of the original Gospel as it is to one of our latter-day denominations, we would expect to find many references to it in writings by Christians who lived a short time after Jesus. Yet, barring one reference by Clement of Alexandria in Excerpt 22 of Excerpta ex Theodoto and one by Tertullian in Against Marcion 5.10, 1 Corinthians 15.29 stands alone in the age of Saint Paul and for centuries afterwards.
First, one cannot help but see a smokescreen in Thomas' argument. Let us just agree, for the sake of argument, that baptism for the dead is weakly attested in the patristic literature, as well as posthumous salvation (salvation for the dead) as a whole. Let us now turn the tables: patristic documentation on baptismal regeneration and subordinationist Christology are two of the most thoroughly addressed and substantiated doctrines in the writings of the early patristic period (and in the case of baptismal regeneration, the late patristic and Medieval periods, too), yet this particular Protestant apologist rejects both of them. So, we obviously see that documentation from the early Church Fathers is meaningless to him, and is arbitrarily choosing which doctrines from the patristic period he wishes to believe, despite the overwhelming evidence of views contrary to his understanding of the gospel. In reality, it comes down to the issue of final authority and whether Mike Thomas’ flavour of Protestantism and sola scriptura is true, which it is not. To see pages refuting sola scriptura on this blog, click here; to see how bankrupt Thomas’ arguments are on the issue of the Bible and related issues, see Latter-day Saints and the Bible, a response to his article, “Mormons and the Bible.” In reality, even if the Bible and the patristic literature were silent on this issue, it would not matter, as Latter-day Saints do not hold to the anti-biblical teaching and practice of sola scriptura.
Secondly, the Bible affirms the foundations necessary for posthumous salvation (not just baptism for the dead), such as universal atonement (e.g., 1 John 2:1-2; 1 Tim 2:4); a view of humanity that is much higher than Total Depravity; baptismal regeneration; 1 Cor 15:29 which mentions the practice (and can be exegeted soundly to support it being an authentic practice of the early Christian faith); and texts such as 1 Pet 3:18-20; 4:6 which teaches posthumous salvation. Furthermore, outside of eisegetical “proof-texting” passages such as Heb 9:27, there is nothing in the Bible to preclude this as a genuine Christian teaching. Additionally, when one surveys patristic scholarship, one views that posthumous salvation is an authentic belief of the early Church and that the early Christian interpretation of passages such as 1 Pet 3:18-20 is strongly paralleled to that in D&C 138, a revelation given to Joseph F. Smith in 1918. For those who wish to delve into this issue, see, for example:
Jeffry A. Trumbower, Rescue for the Dead: The Posthumous Salvation of Non-Christians in Early Christianity
Stephen Jonathan, Grace Beyond the Grave: Is Salvation Possible in the Afterlife?
Hilarion Alfeyev, Christ the Conqueror of Hell: The Descent into Hades from an Orthodox Perspective
David L. Paulsen, Kendel J. Christensen, and Martin Pulido wrote four articles for the Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture on posthumous salvation:
Redemption for the Dead: Continuing Revelation after Joseph Smith
Additionally, note the following from a competent New Testament scholar:
Additionally, note the following from a competent New Testament scholar:
It cannot be denied that Paul is here [1 Cor 15:29] speaking of a vicarious baptism: one is baptised for the dead to ensure for them a share in the effect of baptism, and this must relate to a post-mortal life. It is also clear that Paul himself refers to this baptismal practice, and without distancing himself from it (This is the embarrassing perception which is the reason for some (comparatively few) interpreters making an imaginative attempt to ignore that this relates to a vicarious baptism). (Søren Agersnap, Baptism and the New Life: A Study of Romans 6:1-14 [Langelandsgade, Denmark: Aarhus University Press, 1999], 175-76)
As he is on so many issues, Mike Thomas is way off in left field.
In Judith 8:14, a book in the Apocrypha, we read:
In Judith 8:14, a book in the Apocrypha, we read:
You cannot plumb the depths of the human heart or understand the workings of the human mind; how do you expect to search out God, who made all these things, and find out his mind or comprehend his thought? No, my brothers, do not anger the Lord our God. (NRSV)
I am reminded of Mike Thomas and other Evangelicals such as David Bartosiewicz where one cannot plumb the biblical, theological, logical, and historical problems of their "arguments." Perhaps LDS apologists should give them thanks for keeping us busy, but, sadly, they are purveyors of a damnable false gospel (cf. Gal 1:6-9), so instead, they should be refuted as well as prayed for as they are under the wrath of God.