“Soul sleep” is not what Scripture teaches (see #26). but the believers go to be with the Lord, while Paul’s mention of baptism for the dead* (vicarious baptism, which is attested to being practiced by such as the Marcionites in post apostolic times), was likely only in the interest of attesting to belief in the resurrection.
Paul also quoted a pagan philosopher in support of the truth that there is one God, (Acts 17:28) though this does not sanction all that such a pagan may do in worshiping such. And the fact is that the devils attest to the reality that there is one God, for they tremble at the realization of that, (Ja. 2:19) yet demons are wrong. Thus vicarious baptism attests to the resurrection, though the practice does not have Scriptural support.
Yet the Mormonic practice of baptism for the dead is the type of aberration most often seen among those who exalt another authority above Scripture, thus their teachings need not rest upon the weight of Scriptural warrant.
And and the Roman church comes close to supporting vicarious baptism with its infant baptism by proxy faith, but there is no example of anyone being saved or baptized who could fulfil the stated requirements for baptism, that of repentance and faith. (Acts 2:38; 8:36,27) Thus support must be derived upon the unprovable premise that household baptisms included infants, though even there faith is indicated where by any further description is given.
*1Co 15:29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?
Thanks for reply. I agreed have politely discussed the premise with a few Mormon friends what was really going there in the scripture.
I usually get some weird convoluted explanation that is out of context and can’t be supported anywhere else in the Bible.
They willingly don’t get the concept that a truth in the Bible is always corroborated elsewhere.
Still fun to discuss.