Apparently some in Corinth were being baptized on behalf of others who had already died. This practice is not mentioned elsewhere in the Bible or in other ancient writings. Numerous explanations of the practice have been proposed, all of them speculative and none persuasive. Paul mentions the rite only to show the logical inconsistency of his opponent\u2019s position.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\nI don\u2019t see how that last sentence follows. I think the entire context falsifies it. Paul\u2019s statement \u2014 whatever it means \u2014 is used as a rhetorical argument favoring the resurrection of the dead, not as an anomalous, incongruous example within the context of a positive affirmation of resurrection. The entire chapter 15 is about Jesus\u2019 Resurrection and that of His followers.<\/p>\n
Paul\u2019s point is that the Christian life of toil and suffering is pointless if there is no resurrection, and if Jesus didn\u2019t rise again (15:14, 17, 19), and that if this were the case, we might as well be hedonists (15:32). After he makes his statement in 15:29, he proclaims in the next verse: \u201cWhy am I in peril every hour?\u201d In other words, \u201cwhy do I go through what I go through, if not for the hope of the resurrection and eternal life?\u201d (cf. 15:32).<\/p>\n
So his example of baptism is one of several practices which only make sense if there is a resurrection. By analogy, then, it is not presented as an inconsistency at all, but as an acceptable practice in light of the resurrection, just like his \u201cperil\u201d and dying \u201cevery day\u201d (15:31). On the contrary, if he wished to condemn such a practice, it seems to me that here was his opportunity to make it clear that it was not only \u201clogically inconsistent\u201d but wicked and forbidden in the Church Age \/ New Covenant period.<\/p>\n
Paul certainly made no bones about other Corinthian faults in his two letters to them. So I say that Paul is supporting the practice, and that this has to be harmonized with Christian theology in some fashion.<\/p>\n
I don\u2019t think Protestants would likely see this passage much differently than Roman Catholics.<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>I don\u2019t think they \u201csee\u201d it at all. :-) Or if they do they wrongly interpret it, in my opinion, just as the commentary above does, with recourse to special pleading and avoidance of the crystal-clear context. And there is other Scripture or ancient writing similar to this, which I will bring in in due course.<\/p>\nAs you may know LDS\u00a0<\/span>[Mormons]\u00a0use this passage to try to proof-text their practice of baptism for the dead.<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>Yes. I think they are wrongly interpreting as well.<\/p>\nPerhaps they were baptized for the sake of those who had died. Meaning, because of the testimony of believers that had been perhaps slain for the faith, these people were now becoming believers and being baptized. I always thought that \u201chuper\u201d could be like \u201cbecause of.\u201d I dunno. One thing is for sure, you can\u2019t build a doctrine out of one verse.<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>There was a cult near Corinth in which the members were baptized on\u00a0<\/span>behalf of dead friends and relatives. Thus cult also happened to believe in a\u00a0<\/span>resurrection.<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>Paul was telling the believers how futile life is if there is no resurrection (\u201cif\u00a0<\/span>the dead are not raised\u2026let us eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we\u00a0<\/span>die\u201d). Interestingly, that particular saying was popular among the\u00a0<\/span>Epicureans. Paul is drawing on the teachings and practices of pagan\u00a0<\/span>religions to give support to his argument! It is along these lines that Paul\u00a0<\/span>also appeals to the practice of the cult (I have forgotten their name) that\u00a0<\/span>practiced baptism on behalf of the dead; the reason that those people\u00a0<\/span>practiced this was because they believed in a coming resurrection. Paul is\u00a0<\/span>saying, \u201cWhy does that group that baptizes people on behalf of the dead do\u00a0<\/span>what they\u2019re doing if there is no resurrection?\u201d He is pointing out that even\u00a0<\/span>among pagans, a belief or disbelief in the resurrection guides their ways of\u00a0<\/span>life. In the case of the Epicureans, their disbelief resulted in a debauched\u00a0<\/span>lifestyle. In the case of the Corinthian cult, their belief resulted in a\u00a0<\/span>practice of baptizing members on behalf of the dead. Likewise, as Christians\u00a0<\/span>our belief in the resurrection should produce a certain response in us;\u00a0<\/span>namely, we should be willing to fight with wild beasts (v. 32), die as\u00a0<\/span>martyrs, and live holy lives (v. 34).<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>Could I ask where you found this historical information (because others have denied it)?<\/p>\nThere is nothing to support that Corinthian believers were being baptized for their dead relatives or friends. The note derives its existence from pure speculation and is contrary to Paul\u2019s larger message delivered through the testimony of his epistles.<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>Well, then this is a big difference of opinion. The above commentary said the practice may have occurred but that Paul opposed it. You say there is no evidence that it occurred, and that Paul is talking about something entirely different. I say Paul is upholding the practice also, but I would interpret it differently (and I am withholding my opinion till other opinions are on the table, because I want to see what they are).<\/p>\nBaptism is the identifying with someone or something. In this case Paul is speaking of identification as a dead person. It means the Corinthian believers were baptized or identified with Jesus Christ who had died for them. They were dead to the world but were alive to Christ. See the contrast of this idea in Gal. 2:20.<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>Considering Paul is about to launch in the program and pattern of the resurrection Paul was saying that if there is no resurrection then we have been baptized for a dead man (Jesus Christ). Paul here, I believe, equivocates the denial of the believers resurrection as a denial of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>Clever, but I don\u2019t buy it, for two reasons. First, 15:29 does not say we were baptized in Christ or with Him, as other baptism passages suggest; rather, it says people are baptized \u201con\u00a0behalf<\/i>\u201d of the dead: an entirely different concept. Obviously, our Lord Jesus needs nothing done on His behalf.<\/p>\nSecondly, \u201cthe dead\u201d seems to me to be a corporate term, not referring to Jesus alone. If you are right, this is an exceedingly strange way to refer to Jesus, as \u201cthe dead.\u201d And apart from the strange idiom and style, it is contradicted throughout chapter 15, because when Paul is referring to Jesus, He says so in no uncertain terms, repeatedly, by using the title, \u201cChrist\u201d (15:3-4,12-17,20), whereas \u201cthe dead\u201d clearly refers to the resurrection of us poor, miserable created human beings, in contradistinction to the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, as in, e.g., 15:12-13,15-16,52. The distinction between the two couldn\u2019t be more clear, with Paul often contrasting them in the very same verse.<\/span><\/p>\nTherefore, I believe your interpretation utterly collapses.<\/p>\n
Actually it does work with the Greek. All you need to do is look at what Paul\u00a0<\/span>talks about in the proceding verse:<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>1 Cor. 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the\u00a0<\/span>Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God\u00a0<\/span>may be all in all. 29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the\u00a0<\/span>dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>In verse 29, Paul is contrasting the thought laid out in verses 24-28 which is\u00a0<\/span>the end of human history and after the judgement when even sin and death\u00a0<\/span>are defeated and God\u2019s kingdom encompasses everything having defeated all\u00a0<\/span>enemies through the Son. Paul is basically saying in verse 29, \u201cIf these things\u00a0<\/span>(vv. 24-29) are not to be, then what is the point of being baptized for a\u00a0<\/span>dead man (Jesus Christ)?\u201d It is a rhetorical question. Follow my line of\u00a0<\/span>thinking?<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>No, for reasons explained above.<\/p>\nSt. Francis de Sales:<\/p>\n
This passage properly understood evidently shows that it was the custom of the primitive Church to watch, pray, fast, for the souls of the departed. For, firstly, in the Scriptures to be baptized is often taken for afflictions and penances; as in Luke 12:50 . . . and in St. Mark 10:38-9 . . . \u2014 in which places Our Lord calls pains and afflictions baptism [cf. Matthew 3:11, 20:22-3, Luke 3:16].<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
This then is the sense of that Scripture: if the dead rise not again, what is the use of mortifying and afflicting oneself, of praying and fasting for the dead? And indeed this sentence of St. Paul resembles that of 2 Maccabees 12:44: \u201cIt is superfluous and vain to pray for the dead if the dead rise not again. . . .\u201d Now it was not for those in Paradise [heaven], who had no need of it, nor for those in hell, who could get no benefit from it; it was, then, for those in Purgatory. Thus did St. Ephraim [d.373] expound it.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The \u201cpenance\u201d interpretation is supported contextually by the next three verses, where the Apostle speaks of being in peril every hour, and dying every day. St. Paul certainly doesn\u2019t condemn the practice, whatever it is (his question being merely rhetorical). Given these facts, and the striking resemblance to 2 Maccabees 12:44, the traditional Catholic interpretation seems the most plausible.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, Paul prays for the dead man Onesiphorus in 2 Tim 1:16-18 (\u201c. . . may the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that Day . . .\u201d \u2014 cf. 4:19).\u00a0The New Bible Commentary<\/i>\u00a0admits that Onesiphorus is likely dead, and that Paul is praying (but somehow not for the dead). A.T. Robertson, in his\u00a0Word Pictures of the NT<\/i>, states: \u201cApparently Onesiphorus is now dead as implied by the wish in 1:18.\u201d<\/p>\n
Conclusion?:<\/p>\n
1. The guy is dead.
\n2. Paul is praying for him.
\n3. Therefore, prayers for the dead are taught (and practiced) by Paul.
\n4. Since Paul\u2019s writings are part of inspired revelation, prayer for the dead is NT and orthodox Christian teaching.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
1 Corinthians 15:29 merely extends that spiritual principle by sanctioning penances for the dead (secondary usage of \u201cbaptism\u201d \u2014 and the similarity to 2 Macc 12:44). Penance, just like prayer, has the effect of aiding another person.<\/p>\n
I anticipated your conclusion. as I stated above, such teaching is based purely upon commentators\u2019 speculation. In a nutshell your thesis is begging the question (for those reading along: begging the question is the name given to an informal fallacy of argumentation which occurs when one assumes inadequate premises provide adequate support for a conclusion. It normally comes from: (1) leaving out a key premise (2) when a premise states the conclusion in some way (3) circular reasoning).<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>Well, that\u2019s easy to say and sounds quite impressive, but the problem is that you have simply made an assertion and not\u00a0demonstrated<\/i>\u00a0(by carefully taking apart my exegesis) how my argument has done any such thing. On the other hand, I replied to your exegetical argument point-by-point, and I believe I demonstrated that it made no sense in the entire contextual passage (though I agree that this doesn\u2019t\u00a0prove<\/i>\u00a0my view \u2014 it merely shows yours to be implausible). You have not yet counter-replied (I hope you will).<\/p>\nI gave all sorts of different arguments for my interpretation, but no one has yet grappled with them, apart from simply stating disagreement, which is, of course, philosophically and exegetically unimpressive, and no reason for anyone to be persuaded otherwise. So you disagree with prayers for the dead . . . fine; I already knew that, but there is still a text to be dealt with here.<\/p>\n
In review of your thesis your conclusion is reached by speculating upon\u00a0<\/span>earlier commentators\u2019 speculation. Therefore you forwarded no argument\u00a0<\/span>because your thesis is begging the question.<\/span>\u00a0In my thesis I forwarded biblical theology and prefaced my conclusion that I\u00a0<\/span>believe that Paul was equivocating a denial of the resurrection to a denial of\u00a0<\/span>Christ\u2019s resurrection. I stated my opinion based upon biblical theology.<\/span>\u00a0Opinions are what you asked for, and what I presented to you.<\/span>\u00a0The problem is when you shift from opinions to facts by attempting to\u00a0<\/span>become dogmatic upon your opinion you then are committing a formal fallacy\u00a0<\/span>of affirming the consequent.<\/span>\u00a0Examples of the fallacy of affirming the consequent:<\/span><\/p>\nIf Paul was hammering against baptizing for the dead, then David is right.<\/span><\/p>\nDavid is right.<\/span>
\nTherefore, Paul was hammering against baptizing for the dead.<\/span>
\nIf you were a gorilla, you\u2019d have two legs.<\/span>
\nYou have two legs.<\/span>
\nTherefore, you must be a gorilla<\/span><\/p>\nIf P then Q<\/span>
\nQ<\/span>
\nTherefore, P<\/span><\/p>\nOnce the formal fallacy is spotted one need not continue to examine the\u00a0<\/span>argument. Since you have shifted from opinion to fact and I have noted the\u00a0<\/span>fallacy, there is no need for this apologist to further demonstrate why the\u00a0<\/span>argument is incorrect.<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>I don\u2019t buy it at all, but shoot yourself.<\/p>\nAre you at least willing to reply to my critique of\u00a0your<\/i>\u00a0interpretation, if you won\u2019t respond directly (i.e., exegetically) to mine? We keep getting further and further away from the text itself, which is the really interesting thing in this discussion, not your descriptions of various logical fallacies wrongly applied to my analysis . . .<\/p>\n
Look at the big idea that chapter 15 lays out and ask yourself why Paul is\u00a0<\/span>going through the trouble of presenting his counsel concerning the resurrection?<\/span><\/p>\nFact of Christ\u2019s resurrection (1-11)<\/span>
\nImportance of Christ\u2019s resurrection (12-19)<\/span>
\nOrder of resurrection (20-28)<\/span>
\nMoral implications of Christ\u2019s resurrection (29-34)<\/span>
\nBodies of the resurrected dead (35-50)<\/span>
\nBodies of the translated living (51-58)<\/span><\/p>\nConsidering Paul had been handed a shopping list of problems and questions,\u00a0<\/span>what problem or question do you suppose he was answering?<\/span>\u00a0What fits the text better?<\/span>\u00a0A denial of the believers resurrection or baptism for the dead?<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>My notion fits in perfectly well with the schema of the chapter because Paul was making a rhetorical argument having to do with the fact that there are folks who are resurrected and alive in the afterlife. Paraphrase of his rhetorical question: \u201cwhy do something for their sakes if they aren\u2019t there in the first place?\u201d That makes perfect sense to me.<\/p>\nYou, on the other hand, have suggested a strange, eccentric reading of the phrase \u201cthe dead\u201d and tried to apply it to Jesus\u2019 Resurrection, whereas Paul everywhere else in the chapter (since you agree, of course, that context is relevant and important) uses it as a term for the general dead, and contrasts it to Christ several times. I think this indicates exegetical desperation on your part, to latch onto such an exceedingly weak and implausible thesis.<\/p>\n
My problem with the way you are proceeding in this discussion is your ignoring of both my particular exegetical arguments (which are various) and my critiques of yours. In my opinion, there is no dialogue unless you or someone else does that (we\u2019re just talking past each other).<\/p>\n
Failing that, I will simply assume that my interpretation is unchallenged (and, I believe, the most plausible of the choices presented), and that my critique of yours is successful, because you are unwilling to even attempt to overthrow it. Why would I think otherwise? Sometimes silence speaks volumes. And it is golden. :-)<\/p>\n
Certainly you are capable of better than that.<\/p>\n
Basically, I\u2019m not challenging your opinion because it hasn\u2019t registered as an\u00a0<\/span>argument.<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>That\u2019s a clever way to avoid a discussion. I\u2019ll have to remember that one. :-)<\/p>\nWhat I\u2019m saying is that quoting people\u2019s speculation, and then\u00a0<\/span>adding your own speculation in the end is still just opinion.<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>Well, I\u2019m not going to argue this other than to deny that I did it, or to say \u2014\u00a0granting that I was merely \u201cspeculating\u201d \u2013, that you are doing nothing\u00a0different. Else, why do you yourself write below: \u201d I would point out that\u00a0Calvin\u2019s commentary on 1 Cor. 15:29-34 tends to support my opinion.\u201d<\/p>\nSo\u00a0you quote Calvin\u2019s speculations, add your own, and offer \u201cjust an opinion\u201d in\u00a0the end, but that is okay, whereas my effort somehow is not? Strange. Or is\u00a0it because Calvin is a big shot, so then the procedure transcends your\u00a0alleged logical difficulties and then becomes proper and quite appropriate?<\/p>\n
I submit that your real problem seems to be my presupposition that\u00a0penances and prayers for the dead are not ruled out from the outset; so I\u00a0incorporate them into my interpretation of the passage. Of course,\u00a0everyone<\/i>\u00a0brings a theological framework and paradigm to commentary (so\u00a0it is nothing extraordinary that I do the same from my Catholic belief).<\/p>\n
Our\u00a0choice, then, in doing comparative exegesis, is to either merely put down the\u00a0other view as \u201cjust speculation\u201d or \u201cjust opinion\u201d because we don\u2019t like it, or\u00a0to actually\u00a0interact<\/i>\u00a0with it point-by-point (i.e., make a\u00a0counter-argument<\/i>) and show (giving our own opinions and speculations)\u00a0how it is incorrect or implausible.<\/p>\n
That sticks to the text, and is actually exegesis, as opposed to polemics and\u00a0grandiose statements about the supposed fallacies in the other guy\u2019s\u00a0opinion. And I often wonder why it is so difficult to get people to do that.\u00a0It\u2019s really fun, and one learns so much by delving deeply into any given\u00a0biblical text. I know I always learn something.<\/p>\n
Calvin is widely read by many people and not at all obscure.<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>So are Marx, Freud, Darwin, Nietzsche, etc. So what? But I do agree with his\u00a0comments against another false interpretation, and will cite them below.<\/p>\nTo opinions, I say, great, good for you!<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>And to you! Cheers (offering a toast to your mere opinions).<\/p>\nWithin the context Paul is making certain that people know about the\u00a0<\/span>resurrection of the dead in Christ. Again, this chapter is parked within an\u00a0<\/span>epistle that is relating the apostle\u2019s answers to a shopping list of questions\u00a0<\/span>and problems. Because of this the exegete would seek to understand that\u00a0<\/span>nature of the question or problem Paul is responding to. I have suggested\u00a0<\/span>that there were those within Corinth that were denying the resurrection of\u00a0<\/span>the dead. I would argue that the context of the chapter supports this\u00a0<\/span>approach, as does the larger context of the epistle.<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>We\u2019ve been through that, and it is not at issue.<\/p>\nFurther, the thesis I present, although still my opinion, blends well within Paul\u2019s theology.<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>Opinion? But I thought that is what you were objecting to in my posts????<\/p>\nNevertheless, to support your thesis, you need to present something\u00a0<\/span>concrete showing that the church of Corinth had fallen into the heterodox\u00a0<\/span>practice of baptizing for the dead. To the best of my knowledge no such\u00a0<\/span>evidence exists other than speculation.<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>This has nothing to do with my opinion. I have no idea why you would think\u00a0that it does. I\u2019m not even interpreting Paul\u2019s reference to \u201cbaptism\u201d as\u00a0referring to water baptism.<\/p>\nTo the charge that mine, is \u201ca strange, eccentric reading,\u201d I would point\u00a0<\/span>out that Calvin\u2019s commentary on 1 Cor. 15:29-34 tends to support my opinion.<\/span><\/p>\nHe doesn\u2019t say that \u201cthe dead\u201d refers to Christ. That is what I was\u00a0specifically saying was \u201cstrange, eccentric\u201d in your view. And you have\u00a0consistently refused to defend it and respond to my contextual critique.\u00a0That\u2019s your right, but it doesn\u2019t impress me, and I dare say that it won\u2019t\u00a0impress an impartial reader.<\/p>\n
His commentary gives the \u201cCorinthian Church baptized for the dead\u201d position\u00a0<\/span>a thorough plummeting, if you are interested in reading it.<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>Yes, it was very interesting. Thanks for that link. I totally agree with him\u00a0when he critiques that particular view (and made a shorter version of his\u00a0argument myself, above). I disagree with his own positive interpretation,\u00a0though. I would like to cite the portion of his commentary that I agree with:<\/p>\nBefore expounding this passage, it is\u00a0of importance to set aside the common exposition,\u00a0which rests upon the authority of the ancients, and\u00a0is received with almost universal consent.\u00a0Chrysostom, therefore, and Ambrose, who are\u00a0followed by others, are of opinion that the\u00a0Corinthians were accustomed, when any one had\u00a0been deprived of baptism by sudden death, to\u00a0substitute some living person in the place of the\u00a0deceased \u2014 to be baptized at his grave. They at the\u00a0same time do not deny that this custom was\u00a0corrupt, and full of superstition, but they say that\u00a0Paul, for the purpose of confuting the Corinthians,\u00a0was contented with this single fact, that while they\u00a0denied that there was a resurrection, they in the\u00a0mean time declared in this way that they believed\u00a0in it. For my part, however, I cannot by any means\u00a0be persuaded to believe this, . . .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Granting, however, that the argument was\u00a0conclusive, can we suppose that, if such a\u00a0corruption as this had prevailed among the\u00a0Corinthians, the Apostle, after reproving almost all\u00a0their faults, would have been silent as to this one?\u00a0He has censured above some practices that are not\u00a0of so great moment. He has not scrupled to give\u00a0directions as to women\u2019s having\u2019 the head covered,\u00a0and other things of that nature. Their corrupt\u00a0administration of the Supper he has not merely\u00a0reproved, but has inveighed against it with the\u00a0greatest keenness. Would he in the meantime have\u00a0uttered not a single word in reference to such a\u00a0base profanation of baptism, which was a much\u00a0more grievous fault? He has inveighed with great\u00a0vehemence against those who, by frequenting the\u00a0banquets of the Gentiles, silently counte-nanced\u00a0their superstitions. Would he have suffered this\u00a0horrible superstition of the Gentiles to be openly\u00a0carried on in the Church itself under the name of\u00a0sacred baptism? But granting that he might have\u00a0been silent, what shall we say when he expressly\u00a0makes mention of it? Is it, I pray you, a likely thing\u00a0that the Apostle would bring forward in the shape\u00a0of an argument a sacrilege by which baptism was\u00a0polluted, and converted into a mere magical abuse,\u00a0and yet not say even one word in condemnation of\u00a0the fault? When he is treating of matters that are\u00a0not of the highest importance, he introduces\u00a0nevertheless this parenthesis, that he speaks as a\u00a0man. (Romans 3:5; Romans 6:19; Galatians 3:15.)\u00a0Would not this have been a more befitting and\u00a0suitable place for such a parenthesis? Now from\u00a0his making mention of such a thing without any\u00a0word of reproof, who would not understand it to be\u00a0a thing that was allowed? For my part, I assuredly\u00a0understand him to speak here of the right, use of\u00a0baptism, and not of an abuse of it of that nature.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
I would disagree with your interpretation of the verse.<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>That\u2019s fine, but\u00a0why<\/span>? No one has replied to my interpretation, or to my counter-replies to their interpretation. Mine takes into account context, style, the different meanings of \u201cbaptism\u201d in Scripture, and the parallel with Maccabees. No one has touched any of these elements thus far. Maybe they will yet.<\/p>\nPaul brings this verse seemingly out of nowhere to illustrate a point about the resurrection of the dead. It\u2019s obvious that the practice was known to the Corinthian believers in some way,<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
I agree, whatever the practice actually is. Everyone is assuming that Paul is referring to water baptism, when it is not necessary to do so simply by virtue of the word \u201cbaptism,\u201d which has a few different meanings in Scripture. Biblically (and in Catholicism), it is nonsensical to be water-baptized for someone else, because (for Catholics, Orthodox, and several species of Protestants such as Lutherans, Anglicans, Church of Christ, etc.) it confers regeneration, and a dead person is either regenerate or not. No \u201cproxy baptism\u201d will change that fact after they are dead. Even if one denies baptismal regeneration, \u201cproxy baptism\u201d makes no sense because the baptism applies only to the one receiving it.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n
because Paul would\u2019ve probably shed more light on it if it was a new practice or an essential point in Christian doctrine.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
What makes sense is the \u201cpenitential\u201d interpretation, because that easily harmonizes with the parallel passage in Maccabees about prayer for the dead. The problem here is that Protestant theology has no place for such thought, and so it is ruled out from the outset; thus the text remains mysterious for Protestants because of the (in this instance) false preconception they bring to it.<\/p>\n
My thought about it is that he was illustrating a practice from another religon to illustrate a truth about the resurrection.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
I don\u2019t find that plausible. Why talk momentarily about baptism in another religion, in the context of a thoroughly Christian discussion about the resurrection? But bringing in the notion of penance and prayers for the dead makes perfect sense in the context of the Christian theology of the general resurrection.<\/p>\n
The reason: my NIV says \u201c\u2026what will those do who are baptized for the dead?\u201d which sounds like it is directed toward people outside of the Corinthian church. Honestly, unless anyone can time-travel back to the 1st century the passage will always remain obscure.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Only for Protestants, because their theology disallows the (in my opinion) most plausible and sensible interpretation of the verse. It is somewhat obscure for Catholics too, but \u2014 with all due respect \u2014 I think we at least offer some sort of plausible explanation of it.<\/p>\n
Here\u2019s what the text note to my\u00a0
NIV Study Bible<\/i>\u00a0says if you\u2019re curious.<\/div>\n*<\/p>\n
Sure.<\/p>\n
. . . because Paul does not give any more information about the practice, many attempts have been made to interpret the concept. Three of these are: 1. Living believers were being baptized for believers who died before they were baptized, so that they too, in a sense, would not miss out on baptism.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
That makes no sense in any Christian system I am aware of, including Catholicism. The direct effect of a sacrament only applies to the one receiving it. We have the notion of \u201cbaptism of desire\u201d for a person who was not baptized for some reason, but would do so if he could (such as the thief on the cross). That very concept and \u201cloophole\u201d \u2014 so to speak \u2014 presupposes that no one can be water-baptized for anyone else.<\/p>\n
2. Christians were being baptized in anticipation of the resurrection of the dead.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
This violates the text, because the baptism is on\u00a0behalf<\/i>\u00a0of the dead.<\/p>\n3. New converts were being baptized to fill the ranks of Christians that had died.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Stretching it. This doesn\u2019t deal with the text itself, but strikes me as desperate special pleading. Again, it ignores the element of \u201cbehalf\u201d.<\/p>\n
At any rate, Paul mentions the custom almost in passing,<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Whether it is in passing or not, it has to be explained in some fashion. Better for Protestants to simply admit ignorance, than to special plead, in order to avoid at all costs a \u201cCatholic\u201d interpretation.<\/p>\n
using its arguments substantiating the resurrection of the dead, but without necessarily approving the practice.\u201d<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
There is no hint in the passage that I can see, that Paul disapproves of it. As I wrote earlier, if he did, it stands to reason that he would show his disagreement when he mentions it. That would be his responsibility as an Apostle and Christian teacher, responsible for his flock.<\/p>\n
My problem with your exegesis is that:<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>1: How do we know that the guy<\/span>\u00a0[Onesiphorus]<\/span>\u00a0is even dead? It doesn\u2019t seem totally certain.<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>Because Paul refers to the \u201chousehold of Onesiphorus\u201d twice. If I were writing to you, I don\u2019t think I would say \u201cI send greetings to the household of [name] . . . \u201d No, I would say, \u201cGreetings to you and your house,\u201d or \u201cI hope you and yours are well,\u201d as I often do. But\u00a0you<\/i>\u00a0would be mentioned in it. That\u2019s why some commentators think he was dead. E.g.,\u00a0The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia<\/i>\u00a0(vol. 4, 2195, \u201cOnesiphorus\u201d) states:<\/p>\nIt is not clear whether Onesiphorus was living, or whether he had died, before Paul wrote the epistle. Different opinions have been held on the subject. The way in which Paul refers to \u2018the household . . . of Onesiphorus,\u2019 makes it possible that Onesiphorus himself had died . . . but certainty is impossible.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
2: Is Paul praying or simply expressing a wish?<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>Well, I think this attempted distinction is stretching it a bit too far. The Protestant, in his necessity to escape the implication of prayers for the dead, comes up with this business of Paul \u201cwishing\u201d (as several commentators do). In any event, his words read exactly like a prayer: \u201cmay the Lord grant him to find mercy on that Day\u201d (2 Tim 1:18; RSV). What is the difference between, e.g., \u201cI pray that God will bless you\u201d and \u201cI wish that God will bless you\u201d? The sentiment is pretty much the same one.<\/p>\nTo jump from that to the claim that praying for the dead is Biblical seems more like a leap \u2014 it is not certain enough for that kind of commitment.<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>I wasn\u2019t making a full-fledged argument for prayers for the dead. I do that elsewhere. I just mentioned it as a cross-reference to the discussion on \u201cbaptism for the dead,\u201d because Paul appears to have a verse from Maccabees in mind, where prayer for the dead is explicitly taught (and that shows it was indeed Jewish practice, whatever one thinks of the canonicity of that particular book). It\u2019s fun to throw these things out to see what Protestants try to do with them. :-)<\/p>\nThanks for your feedback, and my wish, hope, desire (prayer?) is that God will be merciful to you on that Day! :-)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Stay in touch! Like Biblical Evidence for Catholicism on Facebook:<\/em><\/p>\n\n
\n
Biblical Evidence for Catholicism<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Baptism: fresco on the catacomb of Saints Marcellinus and Peter, Via Labicana, Rome, Italy [public domain \/ Wikimedia Commons] *** Uploaded on 5 June 2002. ** This discussion took place on a public Internet bulletin board, with six Protestants. Their words will appear in various colors, with my primary opponent\u2019s words in\u00a0blue. * * * […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":5707,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[206],"tags":[1956,200,1398,1955,207,1402,1690,209],"class_list":["post-5705","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-saints-purgatory-penance","tag-baptism-of-fire","tag-penance","tag-penance-for-the-dead","tag-penitential-practices","tag-prayer-for-the-dead","tag-prayers-for-the-dead","tag-praying-for-the-dead","tag-purgatory-2"],"yoast_head":"\n
Baptizing the Dead? (Odd Verse 1 Corinthians 15:29)<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"The "penance" interpretation of "baptizing" is supported by the next three verses, where the Apostle speaks of being in peril every hour, & dying every day.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/01\/baptizing-the-dead-odd-verse-1-cor-1529.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Baptizing the Dead? (Odd Verse 1 Corinthians 15:29)\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The "penance" interpretation of "baptizing" is supported by the next three verses, where the Apostle speaks of being in peril every hour, & dying every day.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/01\/baptizing-the-dead-odd-verse-1-cor-1529.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:author\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2016-01-18T18:19:40+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-27T16:20:32+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2016\/01\/BaptismCatacombs.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"257\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"400\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Dave Armstrong\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Dave Armstrong\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"25 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/01\/baptizing-the-dead-odd-verse-1-cor-1529.html\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/01\/baptizing-the-dead-odd-verse-1-cor-1529.html\",\"name\":\"Baptizing the Dead? (Odd Verse 1 Corinthians 15:29)\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2016-01-18T18:19:40+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-27T16:20:32+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e\"},\"description\":\"The \\\"penance\\\" interpretation of \\\"baptizing\\\" is supported by the next three verses, where the Apostle speaks of being in peril every hour, & dying every day.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/01\/baptizing-the-dead-odd-verse-1-cor-1529.html#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/01\/baptizing-the-dead-odd-verse-1-cor-1529.html\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/01\/baptizing-the-dead-odd-verse-1-cor-1529.html#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Baptizing the Dead? (Odd Verse 1 Corinthians 15:29)\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/\",\"name\":\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism\",\"description\":\"Catholic biblical apologetics\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e\",\"name\":\"Dave Armstrong\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Dave Armstrong\"},\"description\":\"Dave Armstrong is a Catholic author and apologist, who has been actively proclaiming and defending Christianity since 1981, and Catholicism in particular since 1991 (full-time since December 2001). Formerly a campus missionary, as a Protestant, Dave was received into the Catholic Church in February 1991, by the late, well-known catechist and theologian, Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave\u2019s articles have appeared in many influential Catholic periodicals, including \\\"This Rock\\\" (now called \\\"Catholic Answers Magazine\\\"), \\\"Envoy Magazine\\\" (Patrick Madrid), \\\"The Catholic Answer,\\\" \\\"The Coming Home Journal,\\\" \\\"Gilbert Magazine\\\" (American Chesterton Society), and \\\"The Latin Mass.\\\" He also writes a featured column for every issue of \\\"The Michigan Catholic\\\": published by the archdiocese of Detroit, and was editor for most of the apologetics tracts published by the St. Paul Street Evangelization apostolate. Dave\u2019s apologetics and writing apostolate was the subject of a feature article in the May 2002 issue of \\\"Envoy Magazine.\\\" He served as the staff moderator at the Internet discussion forum for The Coming Home Network, from 2007-2010. Dave has been interviewed on many nationally syndicated Catholic radio shows, including \\\"Catholic Answers Live\\\" (twice), \\\"Faith and Family Live\\\" (Steve Wood), \\\"Kresta in the Afternoon,\\\" \\\"Son Rise Morning Show,\\\" \\\"Catholic Connection\\\" (Teresa Tomeo), and \\\"The Catholics Next Door.\\\" His large and popular website, \\\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism,\\\" was online from March 1997 to March 2007, and received the 1998 Catholic Website of the Year award from \\\"Envoy Magazine.\\\" His blog of the same name (now transferred to Patheos), begun in February 2004, contains more than 1,500 papers, at least 500 debates or dialogues, and over 50 distinct \\\"index\\\" web pages. Unsolicited correspondence has indicated many hundreds of conversions (or returns) to the Catholic faith as a result, by God's grace, of these writings. Dave's conversion story was published in the bestselling book \\\"Surprised by Truth\\\" (edited by Patrick Madrid; San Diego: Basilica Press, 1994). Sophia Institute Press has published six of his books: \\\"A Biblical Defense of Catholicism\\\" (Foreword by Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J., 1996 \/ 2003), \\\"The Catholic Verses\\\" (2004), \\\"The One-Minute Apologist\\\" (2007), \\\"Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths\\\" (2009), \\\"The Quotable Newman\\\" (editor: 2012), and \\\"Proving the Catholic Faith is Biblical\\\" (2015). He is co-author (with Dr. Paul Thigpen) of the inserts for \\\"The New Catholic Answer Bible\\\" (Our Sunday Visitor: 2005), and editor for \\\"The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton: The Very Best Quotes, Quips, and Cracks from the Pen of G. K. Chesterton\\\" (Saint Benedict Press \/ TAN Books: 2009). \\\"100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura\\\" was published by Catholic Answers in May 2012. His \\\"Quotable Wesley\\\" compilation was published by (Protestant \/ Wesleyan publisher) Beacon Hill Press in April 2014. Several of his 49 books are bestsellers in their field. Dave maintains a popular personal Facebook page, a Facebook author page, and has a Twitter account as well. He offers almost all of his books in e-book form on his own Biblical Catholicism site (http:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/), at a permanent deep discount: only $2.99 for ePub, mobi, and AZW, and $1.99 for PDF. His writing has been enthusiastically endorsed or recommended by many leading Catholic apologists, authors, and priests, including Dr. Scott Hahn, Fr. Peter M. J. Stravinskas, Marcus Grodi, Patrick Madrid, Steve Ray, Tim Staples, Devin Rose, Mike Aquilina, Al Kresta, Karl Keating, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Brandon Vogt, Marcellino D'Ambrosio, and Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave has been happily married to his wife Judy since October 1984. They have three sons and a daughter, and reside in southeast Michigan (metro Detroit).\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/\",\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798\",\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LuxVeritatisApologetics\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/author\/davearmstrong\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Baptizing the Dead? (Odd Verse 1 Corinthians 15:29)","description":"The \"penance\" interpretation of \"baptizing\" is supported by the next three verses, where the Apostle speaks of being in peril every hour, & dying every day.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/01\/baptizing-the-dead-odd-verse-1-cor-1529.html","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Baptizing the Dead? (Odd Verse 1 Corinthians 15:29)","og_description":"The \"penance\" interpretation of \"baptizing\" is supported by the next three verses, where the Apostle speaks of being in peril every hour, & dying every day.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/01\/baptizing-the-dead-odd-verse-1-cor-1529.html","og_site_name":"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism","article_author":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798","article_published_time":"2016-01-18T18:19:40+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-27T16:20:32+00:00","og_image":[{"width":257,"height":400,"url":"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2016\/01\/BaptismCatacombs.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Dave Armstrong","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Dave Armstrong","Est. reading time":"25 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/01\/baptizing-the-dead-odd-verse-1-cor-1529.html","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/01\/baptizing-the-dead-odd-verse-1-cor-1529.html","name":"Baptizing the Dead? (Odd Verse 1 Corinthians 15:29)","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website"},"datePublished":"2016-01-18T18:19:40+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-27T16:20:32+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e"},"description":"The \"penance\" interpretation of \"baptizing\" is supported by the next three verses, where the Apostle speaks of being in peril every hour, & dying every day.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/01\/baptizing-the-dead-odd-verse-1-cor-1529.html#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/01\/baptizing-the-dead-odd-verse-1-cor-1529.html"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/01\/baptizing-the-dead-odd-verse-1-cor-1529.html#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Baptizing the Dead? (Odd Verse 1 Corinthians 15:29)"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/","name":"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism","description":"Catholic biblical apologetics","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e","name":"Dave Armstrong","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Dave Armstrong"},"description":"Dave Armstrong is a Catholic author and apologist, who has been actively proclaiming and defending Christianity since 1981, and Catholicism in particular since 1991 (full-time since December 2001). Formerly a campus missionary, as a Protestant, Dave was received into the Catholic Church in February 1991, by the late, well-known catechist and theologian, Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave\u2019s articles have appeared in many influential Catholic periodicals, including \"This Rock\" (now called \"Catholic Answers Magazine\"), \"Envoy Magazine\" (Patrick Madrid), \"The Catholic Answer,\" \"The Coming Home Journal,\" \"Gilbert Magazine\" (American Chesterton Society), and \"The Latin Mass.\" He also writes a featured column for every issue of \"The Michigan Catholic\": published by the archdiocese of Detroit, and was editor for most of the apologetics tracts published by the St. Paul Street Evangelization apostolate. Dave\u2019s apologetics and writing apostolate was the subject of a feature article in the May 2002 issue of \"Envoy Magazine.\" He served as the staff moderator at the Internet discussion forum for The Coming Home Network, from 2007-2010. Dave has been interviewed on many nationally syndicated Catholic radio shows, including \"Catholic Answers Live\" (twice), \"Faith and Family Live\" (Steve Wood), \"Kresta in the Afternoon,\" \"Son Rise Morning Show,\" \"Catholic Connection\" (Teresa Tomeo), and \"The Catholics Next Door.\" His large and popular website, \"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism,\" was online from March 1997 to March 2007, and received the 1998 Catholic Website of the Year award from \"Envoy Magazine.\" His blog of the same name (now transferred to Patheos), begun in February 2004, contains more than 1,500 papers, at least 500 debates or dialogues, and over 50 distinct \"index\" web pages. Unsolicited correspondence has indicated many hundreds of conversions (or returns) to the Catholic faith as a result, by God's grace, of these writings. Dave's conversion story was published in the bestselling book \"Surprised by Truth\" (edited by Patrick Madrid; San Diego: Basilica Press, 1994). Sophia Institute Press has published six of his books: \"A Biblical Defense of Catholicism\" (Foreword by Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J., 1996 \/ 2003), \"The Catholic Verses\" (2004), \"The One-Minute Apologist\" (2007), \"Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths\" (2009), \"The Quotable Newman\" (editor: 2012), and \"Proving the Catholic Faith is Biblical\" (2015). He is co-author (with Dr. Paul Thigpen) of the inserts for \"The New Catholic Answer Bible\" (Our Sunday Visitor: 2005), and editor for \"The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton: The Very Best Quotes, Quips, and Cracks from the Pen of G. K. Chesterton\" (Saint Benedict Press \/ TAN Books: 2009). \"100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura\" was published by Catholic Answers in May 2012. His \"Quotable Wesley\" compilation was published by (Protestant \/ Wesleyan publisher) Beacon Hill Press in April 2014. Several of his 49 books are bestsellers in their field. Dave maintains a popular personal Facebook page, a Facebook author page, and has a Twitter account as well. He offers almost all of his books in e-book form on his own Biblical Catholicism site (http:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/), at a permanent deep discount: only $2.99 for ePub, mobi, and AZW, and $1.99 for PDF. His writing has been enthusiastically endorsed or recommended by many leading Catholic apologists, authors, and priests, including Dr. Scott Hahn, Fr. Peter M. J. Stravinskas, Marcus Grodi, Patrick Madrid, Steve Ray, Tim Staples, Devin Rose, Mike Aquilina, Al Kresta, Karl Keating, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Brandon Vogt, Marcellino D'Ambrosio, and Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave has been happily married to his wife Judy since October 1984. They have three sons and a daughter, and reside in southeast Michigan (metro Detroit).","sameAs":["https:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/","https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LuxVeritatisApologetics"],"url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/author\/davearmstrong"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5705","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2331"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5705"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5705\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/5707"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5705"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5705"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5705"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
![\"BaptismCatacombs\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2016\/01\/BaptismCatacombs.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n