Featured In 1 Corinthians, chapter 15, verse 29, Paul speaks in favor of baptizing living persons on behalf of the dead.

[Scooter]

So, yes, we can have morality without religion.

Romans 2 addresses the moralist and his need for Christ. You see, it’s not the moralist that enters Heaven, but the righteous. And since there are none righteous we need Jesus’ righteousness imputed to us.

 

[Multicolored Lemur]

that means it's really not done with the intent of saving the dead person, but just as public expression of the faith the dead person had?!

If the dead weren’t saved when they died, they can never be saved.

Paul is a heart-felt writer, to his credit! He really tells you what he thinks.

Is there even one other passage in any of his letters in which he mentions a widespread practice that he doesn’t approve of, but mentions for the purpose of making a general point?

I don’t think so.

Perhaps this one is the one-and-only example. But I think that’s unlikely.

More likely, he is including this as one more positive illustration because he approves in passing of proxy baptism. And maybe a little bit more than merely in passing. But of course, his primary emphasis is “flesh and blood” persons he can actually talk with.

 

[Scooter]

Why would Paul approve of proxy baptism when he made it clear baptism does not save in the first place? He said he was glad he did not baptize many of his readers. He said Jesus did not appoint him to baptize but to preach the Gospel. You are free to believe what you choose, but the evidence does not support your position.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Paul is a heart-felt writer, to his credit! He really tells you what he thinks.

Is there even one other passage in any of his letters in which he mentions a widespread practice that he doesn’t approve of, but mentions for the purpose of making a general point?

I don’t think so.

Perhaps this one is the one-and-only example. But I think that’s unlikely.

More likely, he is including this as one more positive illustration because he approves in passing of proxy baptism. And maybe a little bit more than merely in passing. But of course, his primary emphasis is “flesh and blood” persons he can actually talk with.

I understand what you're getting at. Paul seems to be using the proxy baptisms as a supporting point for the resurrection. He's saying, it wouldn't make sense to do proxy baptisms if there was no resurrection. He definitely didn't speak out against proxy baptisms being wrong in that passage, but does using it as an example mean he condoned it? I don't think that is the case.

The one factor that has mean leaning towards proxy baptisms not being okay to do is Paul's overall message about how to be saved. Proxy baptisms don't fit in with Paul's overall message or it would cause a conflict. Of course, it's possible for anyone to have an unreasonable position . If I can find other solid commentaries on this then I'll post them.

 

[Multicolored Lemur]

and famously there is . . .

Romans 6: 1-2

“What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?”

— English Standard Version

==========================

You see, Paul tells you just what he thinks.

 

[Multicolored Lemur]

Why would Paul approve of proxy baptism when he made it clear baptism does not save in the first place?

I don’t think he said this in chapter 15.

 

[Multicolored Lemur]

He definitely didn't speak out against proxy baptisms being wrong in that passage, but does using it as an example mean he condoned it? I don't think that is the case.

Perhaps this is the crux of the matter.

More than just condones it, I think the fact that Paul uses it as an example means that Paul approves of living persons being baptized on behalf of decease relative.

Now, it may not be one of his points of major emphasis. But then again, the verses talked about in church are the more definite and understandable verses, not the more mysterious verses.

As an adult, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, and the tiny Philemon are the only letters of Paul which I have re-read.

 

[Multicolored Lemur]

— from the 2016 Christian movie “Miracles from Heaven”

Why does God allow a child to get seriously sick?

and when we strive too hard for a definite answer I think is when we run into trouble.

Better just to embrace the mystery and say, I don’t know.

 

[Scooter]

Why would Paul approve of proxy baptism when he made it clear baptism does not save in the first place?

I don’t think he said this in chapter 15.

He said it much earlier in this epistle: 1 Cor.1:
14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

Paul makes it clear that baptism has no part in salvation. If salvation was brought about through baptism, why would Paul say he thanked God that he didn’t baptize any of them? Baptism either by a living person or for the dead has no part in salvation.

No where in scripture does water baptism indicate salvation. Again, Philip dictates the requirement for baptism is salvation before baptism:
Acts 8::
36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

This doctrine cannot be any clearer.

 

[Scooter]

I think the fact that Paul uses it as an example means that Paul approves of living persons being baptized on behalf of decease relative.

I find it odd that you reject the clear doctrines of the Bible but are so dogmatic about an obscure belief that has no support. I mean you are free to believe what you want, but I just find it curious.