- Oct 2, 2011
- 6,061
- 2,235
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
1 Corinthians 15:
Paul's goal in this passage is to prove that R1 is true.
First, he used proof by contradiction to show that there is a resurrection of the dead.
Second, he tried proof by ex concesso:
Paul used the practice of baptism for the dead by some people as a rhetorical device to strengthen his argument for the resurrection. If there was no resurrection, then such a practice would be meaningless. This interpretation focuses on the logical consistency of the resurrection belief rather than the specifics of the practice itself.
A weakness of this argument is this: if Paul knew baptizing on behalf of the dead was wrong, why didn't he explicitly condemn it?
Another possibility is that Paul referred to a reasonable practice that the Corinthian church understood but that has since been lost to history. The Corinthians understood the term as a metaphor for something. We don't know exactly what, so we plead ignorance.
Mormons believe a third possibility. Baptism is an essential ordinance for salvation. However, since not everyone has the opportunity to be baptized during their lifetime, they practice proxy baptism for the dead. This means that living members of the church are baptized on behalf of deceased individuals who did not receive this ordinance while alive.
All three interpretations have weaknesses. I weigh the first one as most likely.
Let proposition R1 = There is a resurrection of the dead for all people.
Paul's goal in this passage is to prove that R1 is true.
First, he used proof by contradiction to show that there is a resurrection of the dead.
Second, he tried proof by ex concesso:
I.e., it made no sense for those people who baptized on behalf of the dead if there is no resurrection of the dead. Paul distinguished himself from those people. He did not say, "Why do we baptize for the dead?".
Paul used the practice of baptism for the dead by some people as a rhetorical device to strengthen his argument for the resurrection. If there was no resurrection, then such a practice would be meaningless. This interpretation focuses on the logical consistency of the resurrection belief rather than the specifics of the practice itself.
A weakness of this argument is this: if Paul knew baptizing on behalf of the dead was wrong, why didn't he explicitly condemn it?
Another possibility is that Paul referred to a reasonable practice that the Corinthian church understood but that has since been lost to history. The Corinthians understood the term as a metaphor for something. We don't know exactly what, so we plead ignorance.
Mormons believe a third possibility. Baptism is an essential ordinance for salvation. However, since not everyone has the opportunity to be baptized during their lifetime, they practice proxy baptism for the dead. This means that living members of the church are baptized on behalf of deceased individuals who did not receive this ordinance while alive.
All three interpretations have weaknesses. I weigh the first one as most likely.
Last edited:
