The following, from a recent (and poorly researched book) by a Protestant apologist shows that the author does not know what he is talking about:
Mormons will point to 1 Corinthians
15:29 as proof that baptism for the dead is biblical: ‘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?’ (KJV) Cults will often pull verses out of their context
to promote obscure doctrine. Though commentators may put forth different ideas
to what the apostle was talking about, they all agree that Paul is neither
advocating baptism for the dead nor claiming it to be something practiced by
the early church.
When in 1 Corinthians 15 is read in
context, it is clear that Paul is addressing the believers as ‘brethren’ in
verse 1. Throughout he uses the words ‘you’, ‘we’ and ‘us’, except in one place.
In verse 29 he says ‘what shall they do which are baptized for the
dead?’ (my emphasis).
It is reasonable to assume that Paul
is speaking of those who are not of the brethren of the Lord Jesus Christ. Paul
could have been addressing a practice connected to the area of Corinth.
However, as the Bible nowhere else mentions this practice, nor was it a
practice of the early church, we can rightly say that it has never been
Christian practice. (Tony Brown, Sharing the Gospel with a Mormon
[Leyland, England: 10Publishing, 2023], 53-54)
On
the “Pronoun” Argument
The author
clearly does not know Greek (and if he did, did not bother to check this
argument for accuracy). Here is the Greek of 1 Cor 15:29 from the NA28:
Ἐπεὶ τί ποιήσουσιν οἱ βαπτιζόμενοι ὑπὲρ
τῶν νεκρῶν; εἰ ὅλως νεκροὶ οὐκ ἐγείρονται, τί καὶ βαπτίζονται ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν
One way to translate the Greek would be:
Else why are the ones being baptised
on behalf of the dead ones? If the dead are not raised at all, then why are the
ones being baptised on behalf of the dead ones?
The Greek text does not have the pronoun “they.” Instead, it uses a present passive participle, literally, “the being baptised ones” (οι βαπτιζομενοι). Contra Tony Brown who harps on the pronoun “they” and their ignorance of the original language texts, the verse is entirely neutral towards the question of whether Paul himself was in favour of this doctrine (though some commentators argue that v.30 shows Paul associated himself with those who were baptised on behalf of the dead).
Now, in n attempt to get around the LDS apologetic response to the "pronoun argument" from 1 Cor 15:29, some argue that, as οἱ βαπτιζόμενοι ("the being baptised ones") is in the third person plural, Paul is still establishing a dichotomy between himself and those engaged in proxy baptisms. However, this is just as lame as the "they" argument. How so? Note 1 Cor 11:16:
While rejecting the “proxy baptism” reading of the verse, Eastern Orthodox priest and scholar Stephen De Young wrote the following against the “pronoun argument” of 1 Cor 15:29
Saint Paul refers to “those who are baptized for the dead,” meaning that he is referring to a particular group. There are some who are baptized for the dead, and others who are baptized, but not “for the dead.” It is important to notice that the word “baptized” is passive in both uses in this verse. It is not “those who baptize for the dead,” but “those who are baptized for the dead.” The action here being described is something done by those who are being baptized, not by the baptizer. So the fact that St. Paul refers to “those who” does not mean that is is some other sect outside of what would be recognized as Christianity. This verse isn’t speaking of people who perform some type of baptism other than Christian baptism, but rather to a group of people who receive Christian baptism in a certain way. (Stephen De Young, The Religion of the Apostles: Orthodox Christianity in the First Century [Chesterton, Ind.: Ancient Faith Publishing, 2021], 142)
Modern Scholarship on 1 Cor 15:29
It cannot be denied that Paul is here
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)
Nevertheless many ancient and most modern writers understand this as a vicarious baptism received by baptized Christians on belief of deceased catechumens. The obvious difficulty is that Paul does not appear to offer any objection to this practice, so prevalent later among heretics. (John J. O’Rourke, “1 Corinthians” in Reginald C. Fuller, Leonard Johnston, and Conleth Kearns, eds. A New Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture [London: Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd., 1969], 1159)
Rolf Furuli, at the time of writing, lecturer in Semitic languages at the University of Oslo, notwithstanding his book being a defence of the New World Translation, and, being a Jehovah’s Witness, rejecting (1) baptismal regeneration and (2) a conscious intermediate state (two foundational doctrines for posthumous salvation) admitted that the “traditional” rendering is the best, which supports the LDS view:
There can be no question that the most natural rendering of baptizomenoi huper tōn nekrōn would be “being baptized for the dead” or “being baptized in behalf of the dead.” In almost every other context, such a rendering would have been chosen. (Rolf Furuli, The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation With a Special Look at the New World Translation of Jehovah’s Witnesses [Huntington Beach, Calif.: Elihu Books, 1999], 289)
This is another of those matters about which Paul and the Corinthians surely understood one another but which we cannot hope to fathom. The most obvious reading of the text would suggest that there are some at Corinth (note that Paul does not address them directly, but writes about them as an example) who are being baptized in behalf of dead persons, perhaps as representatives of dear ones who either never had a chance to respond to the gospel or who had died while being drawn to the faith. But the truth is that we simply do not know. Most surprising is that Paul did not oppose the practice, which seems to suppose either that grace is transferrable or that one can be a surrogate believer for another. Instead, Paul uses it to expose its folly if there is no resurrection of the dead. (J. Paul Sampley, “The First Letter to the Corinthians,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible, 12 vols. [Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2002], 10:982, emphasis in bold added)
Stephen Jonathan, Grace Beyond the Grave: Is Salvation Possible in the Afterlife?
6:1 In turn this Cerinthus, fool and
teacher of fools that he is, ventures to maintain that Christ has suffered and
been crucified but has not risen yet, but he will rise when the general
resurrection of the dead comes.
6:2 Now this position of theirs is
untenable, both the words and the ideas. And so, in astonishment at those who
did not believe in the coming resurrection of the dead, the apostle said, 'If
the dead rise not, then is Christ not raised;' 'Let us eat and drink, for
tomorrow we die' and, 'Be not deceived; evil communications corrupt good
manners.'
6:3 Again, he likewise gives their
refutation to those who say that Christ is not risen yet by saying, 'If Christ
be not raised, our preaching is vain and our faith is vain. And we also are
found false witnesses against God, because we testified against God that he
raised up Christ, if so be that he raised him not up.' For in Corinth too
certain persons arose to say there is no resurrection of the dead, as though it
was apostolic preaching that Christ was not risen yet and the dead are not
raised (at all).
6:4 For their school reached its
height in this country, I mean Asia, and in Galatia as well. And in these
countries I also heard of a tradition which said that when some of their people
died too soon, without baptism, others would be baptized for them in their
names, so that they would not be punished for rising unbaptized at the
resurrection and become the subjects of the authority that made the world.
6:5 And the tradition I heard of says
that this is why the same holy apostle said, 'If the dead rise not at all, why
are they baptized for them?' But others explain the text satisfactorily by
saying that, as long as they are catechumens, the dying are allowed baptism
before they die because of this hope, showing that the person who has died will
also rise, and therefore needs the forgiveness of his sins through baptism.
6:6 Some of these people have preached
that Christ is not risen yet, but will rise together with everyone; others,
that the dead will not rise at all.
6:7 Hence the apostle has come forward
and given the refutation of both these groups and the rest of the sects at once
on the subject of resurrection. And in the testimonies that he gave in full he
produced the sure proof of the resurrection, salvation and hope of the dead
6:8 by saying, 'This corruptible must
put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality,' and again,
'Christ is risen, the first fruits of them that slept.' This was to refute both
kinds of sects at once and truly impart the unsullied doctrine of his teaching
to anyone who wanted to know God's truth and saving doctrine.
Finally, one cannot help but see a smokescreen in Thomas' and Brown's 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’ and Tony Brown's 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’ and Brown's arguments are on the issue of the Bible and related issues, see Latter-day Saints and the Bible, a response to Thomas' 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. Furthermore, 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.
