If Physical Death is Final?

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by crakjak

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".

Scripture must interpret scripture.


I don't know enough scripture to to dismiss baptism for the dead. My gut feeling says that it was a vain practice then and it is a vain practice now.


I guess I'll just read the rest of this thread!

[bkstokes]

Crackjak
As far as baptizing the dead goes, don't the mormons have that one covered? jk


I haven't taken the time to read through whole thread, but my position on the matters of baptizing the dead and praying for the dead rests in the authority of the Bible. I do believe it to be inerrant, and inspired from God. I see no witness of praying for the dead in the Bible, and one comment that Paul mentions is hard to be placed within a good historical contextual interpretation. We do know that he was writing to the Church, and most propably in response to a letter of theirs. Hence, we do not have all of the information on this fact. I see no other witness in the word of God for this practice (the book of Acts covers 30 years of history). Thus, I do not find it a relevant practice, nor does in support UR doctrine.

Frankly, when one looks to tradition to prove his point -- he/she is falling in the foot steps of romanism.

[ronharvey]

Originally Posted by HappyTown

This might help!


Does Paul Condone Baptism for the Dead (I Corinthians 15:29)?

The practice of being baptized for those who have died is based upon a wrong understanding of I Corinthians 15:29. The New Testament Church did not follow this practice, and the apostle Paul did not teach it. This custom was introduced into the professing Christian world about AD 150 by Marcion, a man who created his own religion and established his own church in Rome in AD 144.

The Bible clearly shows that, before a person may be baptized, he must first repent (Acts 2:38) and believe (Mark 16:16; Acts 16:31, 33). The dead are not able to repent or believe, because "the dead know nothing" (Ecclesiastes 9:5). baptism is for the living; it is a symbol whereby the living acknowledge their sins, figuratively die with Christ in a watery grave, and rise out of that watery grave to live a new, righteous life through Jesus Christ and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (Romans 6:4; 8:9; Galatians 2:20).

Baptism is also a symbol of the resurrection. To rise up out of the watery grave is to acknowledge belief in the resurrection of the dead (Romans 6:1-5). To surrender one's life to Christ now, to crucify the self now, to be baptized—all this is foolish unless there is a resurrection of the dead. If there were no hope of the resurrection, life could be summed up this way: "Let us eat and drink; for tomorrow we die" (I Corinthians 15:32).

I Corinthians 15:29 now becomes clear. The whole of I Corinthians 15 concerns the resurrection from the dead. Paul cites the example of those who were baptized as a proof of the resurrection. Their actions symbolized their hope that they would live again. The resurrection is the hope of the dead.

Paul's question seems to be, "Why are they baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise at all?" (New King James Version). However, this verse is not correctly translated from the Greek. Paul is not talking about being baptized "in the place of," "on behalf of," or "for" the dead. The Greek word translated "for" is huper, and it has several meanings: "above," "over," "instead of," "for the realization of," or "for the hope of," depending upon the context.

For example, Paul declares, "For it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure" (Philippians 2:13). As in I Corinthians 15:29, the Greek word translated "for" is huper. In Philippians 2:13, huper cannot mean "instead of." It would be senseless to say, "For it is God who works in you both to will and to do instead of His good pleasure"! Correctly translated, it means, "God works in you both to will and to do for the realization of His good pleasure" (The Analytical Greek Lexicon). What is God's "good pleasure"? "It is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom," says Jesus (Luke 12:32). God works in us "in the hope of" giving us His Kingdom!

Thus, according to the context, hyper in I Corinthians 15:29 should be translated "for the hope of." Notice the verse again: "Otherwise, what will they do who are baptized for the hope of the dead, if the dead do not rise at all? Why then are they then baptized for the hope of the dead?"

What is the hope of the dead? The resurrection! Baptism illustrates the hope of the resurrection. One who is baptized rises out of a watery grave, symbolic of the resurrection. Paul is thus saying, "What good is it to be baptized if we do not rise in a resurrection from the dead? Why then should one be baptized for a hope that would never come true?" However, Paul affirms that, because Christ died and rose again, we have this true hope, the resurrection, to look forward to (I Corinthians 15:17-22).

This verse, then, has nothing to do with the false doctrine of baptism on behalf of the unbaptized dead.

http://www.thetruegospel.org/index.c...hians-1529.htm

I try to esplain it 2 dem, bot day knot lesin!

[Truthseeker]

Originally Posted by Antipas

Consider the parables of Christ regarding the unforgiving servant (Matthew 18:34-35) and his descriptions of a prisoner's fate (Matthew 5:25-26, Luke 12:59) - Jesus indicated that punishment is not eternal but lasts only until one's entire debt is paid (Matthew 18:34).

So we saved after we pay the debt, interesting. I thought the cross alone saves?

[bkstokes]

1Now faith is the (A)assurance of things (B)hoped for, the conviction of (C)things not seen.

Where does faith fit in the UR doctrine? If the person has already passed from this world to the next, he or she does not need faith because the LORD and His dominance is very self evidant. In other words, faith is not required.

Jesus says he that beliefs shall be saved. For the person who is already dead, there is no more opportunity for faith.

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by 1399

Scripture must interpret scripture.


I don't know enough scripture to to dismiss baptism for the dead. My gut feeling says that it was a vain practice then and it is a vain practice now.


I guess I'll just read the rest of this thread!

I just think it is interesting that Paul does not condemn the practice. And it is obvious that if someone thinks it is effective to baptize for the dead, that they also believe that the dead are not hoplessly lost. These verses seem to tell that the dead were able to be preached to, so why are we so opposed to God's greater grace??? Much more Christlike than endless torture.

"For Christ also suffered for sins once and for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, in order to bring you to God. He was put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the Spirit in which also he went and made a proclamation to the spirits in prison, who in former times did not obey." (1 Peter 3:18-20)

"For this reason the Gospel was proclaimed even to the dead, so that though they had been judged in the flesh as everyone is, they might live in the Spirit as God does." (1 Peter 4:6)

[Antipas]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

So we saved after we pay the debt, interesting. I thought the cross alone saves?

I think you're confusing the terms. The term "saved" means that one is exempt from God's wrath based on their faith and obedience in regards to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. According to UR those who do not believe and obey the Gospel are not saved. They must endure God's judgment and be punished. The UR concept of punishment includes weeping and gnashing of teeth in Hell's flame, in the outer darkness until the end of the ages. The duration is incalculable, there is no way of relating to time in eternity. A soul's judgment will cause them essentially to endure Hell's torments until God has decided that they have paid the last mite. This horror is such that one second and trillions of years cannot be compared...it's a state of horrified timelessness until God deems the soul has adequately paid for their sin. Then, based on Christ's death on Calvary, God reconciles that soul to himself in the dateless future. Without the cross....all would be lost forever. With the cross, even those "lost" can be eventually reconciled.

It's a complex subject.

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by crakjak

Just as salvation is eternal in its effect, so is judgment.

Just as the prodigal son was reconciled to his father, yet he still had wasted his inheritance. Therefore his actions were judged.

The elder son's reward for his stewardship was much greater. He avoided the judgment because of his faithfulness.

Yet both were in final relationship and reconciled to their father.

bump

[Truthseeker]

Originally Posted by Antipas

I think you're confusing the terms. The term "saved" means that one is exempt from God's wrath based on their faith and obedience in regards to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. According to UR those who do not believe and obey the Gospel are not saved. They must endure God's judgment and be punished. The UR concept of punishment includes weeping and gnashing of teeth in Hell's flame, in the outer darkness until the end of the ages. The duration is incalculable, there is no way of relating to time in eternity. A soul's judgment will cause them essentially to endure Hell's torments until God has decided that they have paid the last mite. This horror is such that one second and trillions of years cannot be compared...it's a state of horrified timelessness until God deems the soul has adequately paid for their sin. Then, based on Christ's death on Calvary, God reconciles that soul to himself in the dateless future. Without the cross....all would be lost forever. With the cross, even those "lost" can be eventually reconciled.

It's a complex subject.

I;ll have to think about this one for a little bit. Most universalist don't even believe in hell. If Christ has taken away the sin of the world then why judgement of the world?

Bible says he justifieth the ungodly, so if the ungodly are declared righteous then why judgement?

I agree it's a complex subject, but let's keep seeking for more understanding in humility.

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

I;ll have to think about this one for a little bit. Most universalist don't even believe in hell. If Christ has taken away the sin of the world then why judgement of the world?

Bible says he justifieth the ungodly, so if the ungodly are declared righteous then why judgement?

I agree it's a complex subject, but let's keep seeking for more understanding in humility.

Agreed, I believe judgment categorized as torture is incorrect, rather pruning, correction, to set things right.

Having said that, even in this life sanctification can be a very painful process for the believer as our sinful nature is corrected and changed.

For the unbeliever and particularly the rebellious the judgment will be a painful process of bringing one to realize how wrong they have been, the changing of the mind and heart. Plus the deep pain to know how wicked and rebellious they have been against their pure heavenly father, and the great loss of reward due to squandering their inhertance. (e.i. the prodigal son)

Of course, for those that did not know the father's will, judgment will be much less sever.