What did Paul mean when he referred to those “who are baptized for the dead?” (1 Corinthians 15:29). This mystery has puzzled Christians for centuries. Scholars have suggested dozens of interpretations. But I know of only one answer that is totally in line with Christian doctrine, is totally in line with the context of the surrounding text, is totally in line with the Greek, and makes total sense. So, let’s solve baptism for the dead.
In part 1, we saw that the growing belief that Jesus is the only Word of God, and the Bible is only the word of men, is like the unchecked growth of a cancer. This is because, by rejecting the written Word of God, this assertion sheds itself of the means God has given to check unsound doctrine and false belief. We also saw that the Bible and Jesus claim the written Scriptures to be the Word of God. The Scriptures testify about Jesus (John 5:39). If we cast off their authority as the written Word of God, how can we know anything with certainty about Jesus, the personal Word of God?
The claim that the Bible is not the written Word of God is an inconsistent, irrational muddle that can lead only to complete skepticism.
A. In Part 1, I explained that those who teach infant baptism base their practice on their claim that circumcision and baptism are just two outward signs of the same thing. They say, if infants were circumcised in the Old Testament, they can be baptized now because baptism is the New Testament continuation of circumcision. I pointed out that this is a false assumption because the Bible teaches that spiritual circumcision, not baptism, is the antitype of circumcision. Further, baptism is not an antitype of anything but a sign publicly declaring that God has spiritually circumcised or regenerated the sinner. Now, let’s look at some of the proof texts that infant baptizers use and see how these Scriptures are really no proof for infant baptism at all.
A. In the Old Testament, we read that someone entered the Abrahamic Covenant, and the Old Covenant (Law of Moses) which God temporarily appended to it (Galatians 3:19), by being born into the lineage of Abraham (or by being sold into it) and then being circumcised (Genesis 17:9-12). Many in Christendom today say virtually the same thing in their teachings concerning infant baptism. Essentially, they assert that Christians enter the Covenant by being born into the right lineage (having Christian parents) and then being baptized. They claim that circumcision and baptism are just two outward signs of the same thing. Thus, they say, if infants were circumcised in the Old Testament, they can be baptized now. I’ll explain how this argument is based upon false assumptions and also deflate the proof texts infant baptizers often use to support their case.
A. They both are–at least in most cases. That’s because they are both usually arguing over the wrong verses. As the Baptists assert, the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch does imply immersion baptism. But it is not for the reasons immersionists, such as Baptists, usually cite and which those who baptize by sprinkling, such as Presbyterians, argue against. And the Presbyterians are right to argue against the verses the Baptists claim support their cause.
For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
Act 2:39
The proponents of infant baptism seem to use this Scripture as if it were a cornerstone of their doctrine. Almost all books and articles supporting infant baptism include this verse. But does Acts 2:39 support infant baptism or does it teach just the opposite?
