If Physical Death is Final?

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

Crakjack, please tell us....

What is your perspective on this? ...And what made you ask the question?

It would seem that if the early church prayed and baptized for the dead, whether it was effective or not is irrevalent, that they most certainly did not believe in any type of "endless" punishment.

As you may know I agree with that position. Therefore, I am simply looking for discussion of the matter. So far no one has presented any clear explaination for Paul's comments about being "baptized for the dead".

[Antipas]

I read a book on Universal Salvation titled, Hope Beyond Hell. It was very interesting. Brother...all I can say is that I hope you're right. Because as it stands less than 1% of the human race has been saved according to the traditional Apostolic interpretation.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by crakjak

I don't follow how you got to that explaination.

It is an argument for resurrection, obviously, since that is the context of the verse in 1 Cor 15.

It is wonderful that baptism and death are noted in 1 Cor 15 which you cite, and is the detailed explanation in Romans 6. In Romans 6, baptism is explained as occurring due to the death of Christ. We are baptized into His death. That is the entire reason for baptism. It begins a union of our lives with Christ. And 1 Cor 15 says baptized FOR THE DEAD. I think they are saying the same thing! We are baptized for the -- because of the - issue of Christ having become dead.

Since the context is an argument for physical resurrection, we know that baptism into Christ's death and the union it produces causes us to share the same resurrection Chirst experienced. And there is spiritual resurrection, which is salvation, as well as physical resurrection, which salvation awards us, anyway!

BW Johnson wrote:

Their baptism in the likeness of the death and resurrection of Christ was in hope of their own resurrection from the dead through Christ's resurrection. (Huper Nekroon, for, or on account of the dead, with the exception of resurrection from the dead.) But if Christ has not risen, and the dead rise not, this memorial and emblematic burial has no meaning. "Why, then, are they baptized for the dead?" that is, for the sake of their own resurrection from the dead. This interpretation harmonizes better with Paul's argument than any I have seen.

Barnes spoke of this as well as later in the quote below of an idea that "FOR THE DEAD" refers to FOR THE RISING FROM THE STATE OF BEING DEAD.

1Co 15:29
Else what shall they do ... - The apostle here resumes the argument for the resurrection which was interrupted at 1Co_15:19. He goes on to state further consequences which must follow from the denial of this doctrine, and thence infers that the doctrine must be true. There is, perhaps, no passage of the New Testament in respect to which there has been a greater variety of interpretation than this; and the views of expositors now by no means harmonize in regard to its meaning. It is possible that Paul may here refer to some practice or custom which existed in his time respecting baptism, the knowledge of which is now lost. The various opinions which have been entertained in regard to this passage, together with an examination of them, may be seen in Pool’s Synopsis, Rosenmuller, and Bloomfield. It may be not useless just to refer to some of them, that the perplexity of commentators may be seen:

(1) It has been held by some that by “the dead” here is meant the Messiah who was put to death, the plural being used for the singular, meaning “the dead one.”

(2) by others, that the word “baptized” here is taken in the sense of washing, cleansing, purifying, as in Mat_8:4; Heb_9:10; and that the sense is, that the dead were carefully washed and purified when buried, with the hope of the resurrection, and, as it were, preparatory to that.

(3) by others, that to be “baptized for the dead” means to be baptized as dead, being baptized into Christ, and buried with him in baptism, and that by their immersion they were regarded as dead.

(4) by others, that the apostle refers to a custom of vicarious baptism, or being baptized for those who were dead, referring to the practice of having some person baptized in the place of one who had died without baptism. This was the opinion of Grotius, Michaelis, Tertullian, and Ambrose. Such was the estimate which was formed, it is supposed, of the importance of baptism, that when one had died without being baptized, some other person was baptized over his dead body in his place. That this custom prevailed in the church after the time of Paul, has been abundantly proved by Grotius, and is generally admitted. But the objections to this interpretation are obvious:

(a) There is no evidence that such a custom prevailed in the time of Paul.

(b) It cannot be believed that Paul would give countenance to a custom so senseless and so contrary to the Scripture, or that he would make it the foundation of a solemn argument.

(c) It does not accord with the strain and purpose of his argument. If this custom had been referred to, his design would have led him to say, “What will become of them for whom others have been baptized? Are we to believe that they have perished?”

(d) It is far more probable that the custom referred to in this opinion arose from an erroneous interpretation of this passage of Scripture, than that it existed in the time of Paul.

(5) there remain two other opinions, both of which are plausible, and one of which is probably the true one. One is, that the word baptized is used here as it is in Mat_20:22-23; Mar_10:39; Luk_12:50, in the sense of being overwhelmed with calamities, trials, and sufferings; and as meaning that the apostles and others were subjected to great trials on account of the dead, that is, in the hope of the resurrection; or with the expectation that the dead would rise. This is the opinion of Lightfoot, Rosenmuller, Pearce, Homberg, Krause, and of Prof. Robinson (see the Lexicon article Βαπτίζω Baptizō), and has much that is plausible. That the word is thus used to denote a deep sinking into calamities, there can be no doubt. And that the apostles and early Christians subjected themselves, or were subjected to great and overwhelming calamities on account of the hope of the resurrection, is equally clear. This interpretation, also, agrees with the general tenor of the argument; and is an argument for the resurrection. And it implies that this was the full and constant belief of all who endured these trials, that there would be a resurrection of the dead. The argument would be, that they should be slow to adopt an opinion which would imply that all their sufferings were endured for nothing, and that God had supported them in this in vain; that God had plunged them into all these sorrows, and had sustained them in them only to disappoint them. That this view is plausible, and that it suits the strain of remark in the following verses, is evident. But there are objections to it:

(a) It is not the usual and natural meaning of the word “baptize.”

(b) A metaphorical use of a word should not be resorted to unless necessary.

(c) The literal meaning of the word here will as well meet the design of the apostle as the metaphorical.

(d) This interpretation does not relieve us from any of the difficulties in regard to the phrase “for the dead;” and,

(e) It is altogether more natural to suppose that the apostle would derive his argument from the baptism of all who were Christians, than from the figurative baptism of a few who went into the perils of martyrdom - The other opinion, therefore, is, that the apostle here refers to baptism as administered to all believers.

This is the most correct opinion; is the most simple, and best meets the design of the argument. According to this, it means that they had been baptized with the hope and expectation of a resurrection of the dead. They had received this as one of the leading doctrines of the gospel when they were baptized. It was a part of their full and firm belief that the dead would rise. The argument according to this interpretation is, that this was an essential article of the faith of a Christian; that it was embraced by all; that it constituted a part of their very profession; and that for anyone to deny it was to deny that which entered into the very foundation of the Christian faith.

If they embraced a different doctrine, if they denied the doctrine of the resurrection, they struck a blow at the very nature of Christianity, and dashed all the hopes which had been cherished and expressed at their baptism. And what could they do? What would become of them! What would be the destiny of all who were thus baptized? Was it to be believed that all their hopes at baptism were vain and that they would all perish? As such a belief could not be entertained, the apostle infers that, if they held to Christianity at all, they must hold to this doctrine as a part of their very profession. According to this view, the phrase “for the dead” means, with reference to the dead; with direct allusion to the condition of the dead, and their hopes; with a belief that the dead will rise. It is evident that the passage is elliptical, and this seems to be as probable as any interpretation which has been suggested. Mr. Locke says, frankly, “What this baptizing for the dead was, I know not; but it seems, by the following verses, to be something wherein they exposed themselves to the danger of death.” Tyndal translates it, “over the dead.” Doddridge renders it, “in the room of the dead, who are just fallen in the cause of Christ, but are yet supported by a succession of new converts, who immediately offer themselves to fill up their places, as ranks of soldiers that advance to the combat in the room of their companions who have just been slain in their sight.”

Clarke said:

The sum of the apostle’s meaning appears to be this: If there be no resurrection of the dead, those who, in becoming Christians, expose themselves to all manner of privations, crosses, severe sufferings, and a violent death, can have no compensation, nor any motive sufficient to induce them to expose themselves to such miseries. But as they receive baptism as an emblem of death in voluntarily going under the water, so they receive it as an emblem of the resurrection unto eternal life, in coming up out of the water; thus they are baptized for the dead, in perfect faith of the resurrection. The three following verses seem to confirm this sense.

[Steve Epley]

P aul was refuting one error they was teaching no resurrection of the dead with another error they was teaching baptism for the dead both teachings are heresies and neither were or all taught by the Apostles or Jesus.

[Michael The Disciple]

They were being baptized for the dead IF Christ had not risen FROM THE DEAD. See?

Its in no way saying they were being baptized on behalf of dead people.

The phrase "the dead" is referring to Jesus himself. If he is still dead because there is no resurrection why be baptized for him? It would be a vain and foolish thing.

[Antipas]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

They were being baptized for the dead IF Christ had not risen FROM THE DEAD. See?

Its in no way saying they were being baptized on behalf of dead people.

The phrase "the dead" is referring to Jesus himself. If he is still dead because there is no resurrection why be baptized for him? It would be a vain and foolish thing.

That's the position I was taught. I think it makes the most sense personally. However, the idea of Universal Reconciliation is ultimately the subject matter in question. It always causes me to ask myself....what's the purpose or value of an eternal torture chamber in which human beings are tormented forever and ever without correction and reconciliation?

It's hard to picture God running a never ending torture chamber where human beings suffer torment forever.

[Scott Hutchinson]

Baptism is a type of the resurrection,as one is buried in water and raised from the water,those that die in Christ are raised from the dead to be with Christ for all eternity.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Antipas

That's the position I was taught. I think it makes the most sense personally. However, the idea of Universal Reconciliation is ultimately the subject matter in question. It always causes me to ask myself....what's the purpose or value of an eternal torture chamber in which human beings are tormented forever and ever without correction and reconciliation?

It's hard to picture God running a never ending torture chamber where human beings suffer torment forever.

We cannot understand a lot of things with our limited minds. But we are dealing with God whose mind and understanding is far larger than our own. The BIGGER issue is that if God was going to recover Hitler and everyone who was absolutely wicked, including satan, then the entire gospel is a joke.

And I am no annihilationist, but annihilation of the wicked would solve your question, too.

[Antipas]

Originally Posted by mfblume

We cannot understand a lot of things with our limited minds. But we are dealing with God whose mind and understanding is far larger than our own. The BIGGER issue is that if God was going to recover Hitler and everyone who was absolutely wicked, including satan, then the entire gospel is a joke.

I can understand God condemning Satan and his angels to eternal torments, all of creation’s suffering is essentially their fault. However, mankind is caught in the crossfire. Like children, as you said, we have a limited understanding of the battle. So limited we make terrible choices and yes…we even sin. I don’t know what a human being could possibly do to warrant an eternity in torments. Even Hitler, as evil as he was, is a man that Christ died for. While what Hitler did was an atrocity, it was a war crime, it was war. Also, who did Hitler kill personally? Every soldier is individually responsible for their own actions. Hitler may have given orders but any German soldier could have refused to obey those orders. Here’s another important point to consider, what about all those people who died under Hitler’s command? All the Jews, Catholics, Lutherans, etc? These poor souls plunged forever into a belching, fiery Hell, tormented forever. Why? What purpose does it serve? Does God rejoice in it? Does God truly look down and enjoy watching countless numbers of people be tormented…forever? Why? They went to the wrong church and Hitler got to them before Jesus. And if God doesn’t rejoice in the eternal torment of human souls…can he not punish them sufficiently and redeem them?

There will come a point when all in Hell, including Hitler, will have been there so long their life on earth isn’t even worthy of consideration. There may even come a point when souls in torments will be unable to even remember existence outside of the eternal flame of Hell, meaning they will not even know why they are suffering. We assume that they will remember…but in such torment the psychological damage may be so great after the first 100 years the souls in Hell maybe drooling, mindless, screaming, beings with only tattered remains of a psyche. What purpose would all of that serve?

What I struggle with is that Jesus is the Lamb of God that came to take away the sins of the World. He is come to be the Savior of the World. Yet as we speak less than 1% of the world has been saved. What troubles me is that if this is all that will be saved, while I’m grateful to be a part of that number, if the truth is told…the mission was a failure. It makes Satan the victor. Satan wins. The vast majority are lost just as Satan desired. That to me could be said to make the Gospel a joke.

And I am no annihilationist, but annihilation of the wicked would solve your question, too.

Annihilationism doesn’t entirely bode will with Scripture. The Bible is clear in my opinion, there is an afterlife.

I’ve reviewed the Universal Reconciliation doctrine and found that linguistically and hermeneutically it’s just a matter of the reader’s interpretation. Either could indeed be true. At that point one has to rely on what makes sense in light of God’s nature, power, and one’s own experience and relationship with God. One has to look at the options and see where the Holy Ghost leads regarding what the mind of God is on the matter. What interpretation is more becoming our glorious Savior, our gracious and merciful God?

Somewhere a 12 year old girl was just butchered in the jungles of Africa. She doesn’t know Jesus. One interpretation holds that she will burn forever in a Devil’s Hell…the other states that she will suffer according to her sin and eventually be reconciled to her creator as she submits to his Eternal authority. Which interpretation best describes our God?

Also…could one of these interpretations be the greatest stumbling block to more people accepting the Gospel and being saved from the severity of God’s punishment and correction?

Quite honestly, many can accept that Jesus came to save them and that by obeying him they can be saved from the punishment for their sin. But the idea of an eternal Hell is repugnant to many in that we present a God of Love who would allow such a house of horrors to exist indefinitely…when he has the power to remedy the situation and reconcile all things to himself.

[Antipas]

Originally Posted by mfblume

We cannot understand a lot of things with our limited minds.

I just saw something that I have to comment on...

Are you saying that one day we may be able to actually rejoice in, or in fact support, the notion of eternal torture for the vast majority of mankind?

Also...you brought up Hitler. Hitler condemned countless men, women, and children who were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time to the ovens. If we view Hitler's act as an atrocity, how do we view God casting countless numbers of people into a fiery furnace forever because they were born in a country where the Gospel was never heard? Hitler's oven is an atrocity...but we are to assume that God's is righteous? The very thing that causes us to eschew Hitler is the very thing God is doing. That's problematic.

These are just a few thoughts to ponder.