Socrates, Paul, and Baptism for the Dead

“Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?” 1 Cor 15:29

Here is a notoriously difficult verse. There are two reasons for its difficulty: 1) “There is no historical or biblical precedent for such baptism,” and (more importantly) 2) Paul mentions a clearly unbiblical practice “without apparent disapproval.”[1] Gordon Fee states that “at least forty different solutions have been suggested.” However, most of these propose interpretations that do not match the straightforward meaning: some are being baptized vicariously for those who have already died. Whatever they were actually doing (which Fee says cannot be known), “what is certain is how the text functions in the argument . . . those actions are a contradiction to the position that there is no resurrection of the dead (v. 12).”[2]

The very same week I began to study this passage, I also started reading Plato’s The Last Days of Socrates. The introduction includes a discussion of the persuasive strategies of Socrates. One strategy is called elenchus. “It is a tool for the exposure of problems with beliefs and inconsistencies in sets of beliefs rather than for demonstrating what is true and what is false.”[3] Based on observations of Paul’s argumentation and rhetoric, it is reasonable to assume that Paul would use such a strategy. For the sake of this argument, Paul ignores the fact that being baptized for the dead is a bad idea and demonstrates that those who claim there is no resurrection have an inconsistent set of beliefs. This possibility is supported by Paul’s unusual use of third person (usually 2nd person in such a context, cf. v. 12) and its clear contrast to the first person in the next verse. He certainly keeps his distance from this practice. He goes on to demonstrate that his own actions only make sense if the dead are raised, and therefore are consistent with his claim about the resurrection (vv. 30-32).

Paul assumes that one’s worldview should be internally consistent. I’m sure than none of us want to contradict ourselves. Although we may have theological consistency, it is possible we have not thought through the implications of our faith for other parts of a worldview – economics, philosophy, politics, sociology, etc. It is not uncommon to find people with a biblical theology and an unbiblical political position. More to Paul’s point in this passage is the consistency of our faith and practice. Are our daily actions and lifestyle habits consistent with our professed faith? If not, it is appropriate to ask whether we believe it at all (James 2:18-26).

[1] Fee, 1 Corinthians, 764.

[2] Fee, 1 Corinthians, 763.

[3] Introduction to The Last Days of Socrates, xv.

What Happens After Death?

There are three great questions that humans have asked through the ages: Where did we come from? Why are we here? Where are we going? It is striking to me that people have assumed, or at least hoped, that there is something more than our brief time on earth—some greater cause, some purpose, some destination. Most worldviews and religions attempt to answer these questions. The Christian worldview believes that God has revealed himself and such answers in the divinely inspired book, the Bible. In our church, we have been studying the book of 1 Corinthians and our next passage is 15:20-28. In vv. 20-23 Paul explains that all those who belong to Christ will be resurrected because Christ was resurrected. He is teaching on the resurrection because the believers in Corinth were disagreeing on how to answer the last big question: What happens after death? Some were claiming that there is no life after death (v. 12). In vv. 12-19, Paul argues that such a claim is logically inconsistent with the Christian faith.

God reveals that there is life after death. This truth is now connected to another great truth: Christ will gain total victory over all his enemies. Paul is arguing that there must be a resurrection because we know Christ will defeat all enemies and one of his enemies is death. Therefore, the resurrection of the dead is part of Christ’s final victory over all enemies (vv. 24-28).

For those who do not believe in Christ, this claim provides a motivation to make sure that he has honestly and carefully selected his worldview. It is possible to critically evaluate the various worldviews based on logic and evidence. This particular claim of a future event cannot be thus evaluated, but the Bible and other claims of Christianity can. Consider your position carefully, because if the Bible is right about this, there will be life after death, and you certainly do not want to be an enemy of Christ in the end.

For believers, this truth is a reminder that we cannot live short-sightedly. We must lay up treasures in heaven instead of on earth (Matt 6:19-21). And we must live without fear, having full knowledge of the final and total victory of Christ in the end.

Life-Changing Ecclesiology

The following letter is written by my brother-in-law Sean Gossett to his church. It is explanation of how his changing understanding of church leadership and ministry is the basis for seeking to be bi-vocational. It is my conviction that it is important for the church today to seriously compare its current practices with New Testament teaching on church leadership and body life. It is also my conviction that doing so will result in significant changes for the local church and her leaders.

Sean Begins Bivocational Ministry at Springhill

For about three years now, I have been on an exciting journey in my faith. Specifically, I sense that God has been changing my convictions about what makes for a healthy church. Back in October, I met with the elders and shared what God has been doing in my life. I requested a pay reduction and an extra day off during the week to pursue real estate investing. Beginning in January, I will be bivocational at Springhill, devoting part of each week to ministry at Springhill and part to ministry “in the world” through real estate.  My responsibilities at this point will not change.  I will just have fewer hours in the office each week.

I sense that God is directing my heart to simplify church ministry. One observation I’ve made is that staff-generated, program-driven ministry is less “effective” than ministry initiated by the people. Families across our nation are failing to disciple their own children. A major contributor, in my opinion, is the program-driven church. I don’t believe that programs are inherently wrong, but many have traded an ongoing, lifestyle of surrender to Christ’s Lordship for a cheaper version of Christianity, where the chief end is involvement in church activities.  I think this can have harmful effects, as people ease their consciences with church busyness, thinking that they’re doing their duty for God. It is a checking off the “spiritual box” in one’s mind, if you will.

What does this have to do with my decision to leave a career in ministry? If programs are not the focus in the church (and there are less of them), there is no need for full-time staff members because there isn’t enough work in the week for them to do. Is this good? Yes, I think so, because the church becomes less dependent on one or two people. The responsibility and health of the church is spread out. This is the reason that I believe that God has charged a co-equal group of elders to share the responsibility of leading the church – because it is not healthy for one man to do it.

One of the questions I’ve wrestled with is, “Is a career in pastoring wrong? What does scripture say about this?” Though I don’t have a definitive answer to this, it has been important for me to answer, personally, to be sure that I’m not running from something that God “called” me to earlier in life.  While space prohibits a more detailed response, one thing that has been suggested to me is that during New Testament times there was no concept of a career in pastoring. In scripture Paul mentions compensation in ministry, but compensation is different than a career or livelihood earned entirely from the church. There are several implications of this that affect a church’s health.  Most noticeable is the scriptural teaching of sharing the burden of leadership among all church leaders.  Lining my life up with scripture regarding biblical church leadership is a major motivation for me in this entire process.

Another benefit of bivocational ministry will be financial relief for our church. I heard recently that the average United States church keeps 98 cents of every dollar, while only sending 2 cents abroad for missions. Springhill isn’t much different from that statistic. It is my hope that our church will be free to give away more of our resources in the future. I can have a direct impact on that by providing for my own family.

Along this journey, Anna has been my dearest friend and most trusted confidant. I have treasured this journey with her. Also, there have been many godly men who have counseled me in this decision. Their wisdom and input has greatly impacted my thinking. I’m grateful for God’s wise plan for making good decisions in the safety of the community of believers (Prov. 15:22). That said, I’m on a journey with God and don’t have all of the answers. I welcome your questions and discussion and even correction, if I am wrong. My only desire is to line my life up with the Word of God, for the glory of God!

Sean

Does God Decide Based on What He Knows Will Happen?

I started reading an article this morning entitled “Why Simple Foreknowledge Is Still Useless (in Spite of David Hunt and Alex Pruss)” by William Hasker (JESTS 52/3). It is a part of an ongoing discussion about determinism and the foreknowledge of God. Hasker claims that simple foreknowledge is useless to God. He explains the views:

“Simple foreknowledge is ‘simple’ in that it affirms merely that God knows the future, but not that he predetermines it as is held by theological determinism (Calvinism)” (537).

One way in which some claim simple foreknowledge is “useful” is that God can “prearrange events and circumstances in the light of a foreknown future occurrence, so as better to achieve God’s purposes in the world” (537). Hasker goes on to argue clearly that God cannot make decisions based on what he knows is going to happen because “if God’s decisions are included in God’s foreknowledge . . . , those decisions cannot be made on the basis of his foreknowledge” (540).

Good point. However, Hasker seems to believe that if he can prove that God’s simple foreknowledge is not “useful” then God’s foreknowledge must work in a different way (presumably as determinism). I do not see a need to prove its providential usefulness. Hasker writes in a footnote,

“It is, of course, possible to hold that God possesses simple foreknowledge even if it offers no providential advantage. I judge, however, that only a comparatively small minority of philosophers and theologians would be satisfied with such a view” (538).

That most would not be satisfied with such a view is, of course, not an argument against it. If we accept Hasker’s argument against the usefulness of simple foreknowledge, and yet still reject determinism, then we must conclude that God does not make his decisions based on what he knows will happen.

How, then, does he make his decisions? There are some decisions that he has predetermined. These are things that God will do regardless of what happens. The definition of simple foreknowledge should be modified to include that God predetermines some things.

If we allow that God has also sovereignly predetermined that humans have free will, then there are some decisions that God makes based on what actually happens. This seems to make good sense of God’s ability to determine what he wishes to determine, know and thus prophecy concerning the future, and respond in reality to human choice. We may claim, then, that simple foreknowledge is at least useful in that God often proves himself and confirms his word by telling what will happen before it happens.

It is unnecessary for God to use his foreknowledge for making decisions in order for him to be a sovereign God or for that foreknowledge to be useful. In addition to all this, it seems problematic to argue about the nature of God based on whether we can figure out whether certain qualities are useful or not.