In this addition, I'm going to address something that's always confused me (and I'm sure it's also confused you as well). What follows are some quotes from an article found on the Gospel Coalition's website. The Gospel Coalition (TGC) "is a web publishing network of 'evangelical churches in the Reformed tradition, ' founded in 2005 by theologian D. A. Carson and pastor Tim Keller." D. A. Carson and Tim Keller are big names in evangelism; The Gospel Coalition represents the burgeoning reformed tradition we see in a number of evangelical communities.
The article we're sourcing is titled What Does Paul Mean by 'Baptism for the Dead'?
From the article: "Two conclusions emerge. First, just as Paul’s sacrifices presuppose the resurrection, so the Corinthians’ practice of baptism for the dead presupposes the resurrection. Second, since 1 Corinthians 15 is about resurrection of the dead, not gaining salvation, the Mormons take the passage out of context."In an effort to adhere to their particular soteriology, they haste judgment. Resurrection of the dead is precisely about "gaining salvation." They might disagree with baptismal regeneration, sure; but to say that Paul's resurrection chapter doesn't have anything to do with obtaining salvation is errant. In general, Evangelicals would say that salvation is "Justification, sanctification, and glorification," which means that the culmination of our receiving eternal life is precisely when we're resurrected and glorified. What else are you resurrected to? Jesus himself says, "I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:" This is, technically, the beginning and ending of our faith.
The writer says at the outset,
As it's related in a study found on Jesus' Words Only, a website dedicated to returning the hearts of God's people to following the one he sent, we find the following as it relates to Peter's words in his second epistle, third chapter.
Douglas DelTondo, of JWO, relates the following from his study on this passage:
Hence, we know at the outset that such a word as dysnoetas is intended in a pejorative sense. It has a negative uncomplimentary sense. Think for example of the word "utopia"--an ideal place, versus a "dystopia"--a nightmarish world where one endures great suffering or injustice, typically such as a totalitarian world. So a utopia when the prefix is changed to DYS is a nightmare world--the exact opposite meaning of utopia. See the definition at this link.
Then the conjoined word is NOETAS. It means SENSIBLE. See Francis E. Peter, Greek Philosophical Terms: An Historical Lexicon(1967) at 130 ("logoi noeton" = "sensible things"); 128 (noeton = "intelligible") Cf. NOETA = thought. Hence, DYSNOETAS means "nonsensical thoughts" or "unintelligible thoughts" to reflect that the writer lacks any sense to what he or she is writing. What does that mean?
The problem is that writer's words simply don't make any good sense. They defy common sense.
Thus, it is clear the problem begins with Paul's fault by the word DYSNOETAS used by Apostle Peter, according to its traditional authorship. Some of Paul's writings--not all--are said to suffer from DYSNOETAS."
There can be no doubt that Peter, if he wrote the passage, isn't exactly endorsing Paul's letters. The word he uses to describe his writings carry a pejorative meaning. Indeed, like the author of the Gospel Coalition article states, Paul's words in this passage have no real sense to them.
This is an on going study and is subject to revisions according to further studies.