Man on Cross next to Jesus...saved?

[edwinG]

Hi,
In a post I noticed that it was stated the thief died under the law of the old covenant. I thought that the change came with John the Baptist. If so the thief died under the new covenant. Is this correct?
Christ be with you,
Walk in love
edwinGhttp://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon7.gif

 

[Fiat]

Dear Maccabees and Others:

I always thought that the thief on the cross died under the Old Covenant and not the New. I assumed that Christ’s misison on Earth was not completed until He in fact fulfilled all prophecy regarding the messiah which included being resurrected (3 days after Christ’s conversation with the thief on the cross). How could the New Covenant have come into place when all things had not yet been fulfilled?

If the New Covenant comes into place before Christ in fact fulfilled all He was to fulfill, then don’t we have to conclude that no follower of Christ during that time was still offering sacrifices in the temple pursuant to the Mosaic law, as such an act would deny Christ’s salvific mission? Is there any historical evidence that the followers of Christ were not still participating in the liturgy or sacrifices of the Jewish temple? Clearly in Acts the apostles still went the temple for prayer.

I have not read any Church teaching on this issue, so I would appreciate it if someone could refer me to some texts…

In Jesus and Mary
Fiat

 

[tru_dvotion]

Dear Maccabees and Others:

I always thought that the thief on the cross died under the Old Covenant

and not the New. I assumed that Christ’s misison on Earth was not completed until He in fact fulfilled all prophecy regarding the messiah which included being resurrected (3 days after Christ’s conversation with the thief on the cross). How could the New Covenant have come into place when all things had not yet been fulfilled?

I tend to agree with you. But because I am not able to prove it one way another, and simply did not believe it was too much use to me anyway to research it, I left this discussion to others. But I do think there is merit in what you are saying. I always placed the beginning of the Christian Church at Pentecost and not before.

 

[Kecharitomene]

Maccabees:

This is entirely false. Jesus baptized the aposltes (thus institued by Christ) thus beginning the sacramental baptism.
This baptism was different than John the Baptist who said:
John 1
33 "I did not recognize Him, but He who sent me to baptize 1] in water said to me, ‘He upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, (1) this is the One who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.’

Saint Augustine said Jesus held himslef sacramentally at the consecration at the Last Supper. The first mass was said that night he didn’t need to be in heaven for that to happen. Remember Jesus is outside of time the timeline of things he could overcome.
When Jesus breathed on the apostles the holy spirit, and gave the apostles the power to forgive and retain sins before he ascended into heaven that sacrament started then it need not wait for Jesus to ascend.
Jesus clearly institued these sacrmaents while on this earth.
The New Testament (Covenant) starts with the Gospel not Acts.

John 3:22.
After this, Jesus and his disciples went into the region of Judea, where he spent some time with them baptizing.

It looks like sacred scripture, at least in one place, indicates that Jesus and the diciples were baptizing folks. Why would it be so impossible that the thief (Dimas) wasn’t amongst them? I mean we KNOW that there was at least ONE theif that got baptized, Judas Iscariot. Why couldn’t Dimas have been another?

 

[tru_dvotion]

John 3:22.
After this, Jesus and his disciples went into the region of Judea, where he spent some time with them baptizing.

It looks like sacred scripture, at least in one place, indicates that Jesus and the diciples were baptizing folks. Why would it be so impossible that the thief (Dimas) wasn’t amongst them? I mean we KNOW that there was at least ONE theif that got baptized, Judas Iscariot. Why couldn’t Dimas have been another?

A novel idea.

 

[Maccabees]

Kecharitomene:

John 3:22.
After this, Jesus and his disciples went into the region of Judea, where he spent some time with them baptizing.

It looks like sacred scripture, at least in one place, indicates that Jesus and the diciples were baptizing folks. Why would it be so impossible that the thief (Dimas) wasn’t amongst them? I mean we KNOW that there was at least ONE theif that got baptized, Judas Iscariot. Why couldn’t Dimas have been another?

No I agree St. Dimas was baptized by the baptism of desire but it was under the New Covenant. Like the text I used earlier the New Covenant baptism of Jesus and the aposltes was by the Holy Spirit
John the Baptist the last of the Old Covenant prohpehts baptized for repentance only a common Jewish ritual. Thus an old covenant Baptism did not make one Bory again by the Water and Spirit. The New Covenant Baptism which I am sure St. Dimas had by desire make him born again by the water and spirit he was regenerated like those who are baptized in the trinitarian formula.

This Old Covenant dichatomy with the New is not Catholic teaching at all its low church protestant. Heck Luther taught that Christ sacraments were given while during his minsistry those of baptism and the eucharist. They were in effect then. If you were baptized during Jesus ministry you need not get rebaptized it was a valid baptism. If you were baptized during John the Baptist ministry you would need to get rebaptized. Since Jesus gave us the sacrament of baptism prior to his death St Dimas Baptism of Desire would be in effect under the new covenant.
However, yes Jesus did have some things to finish before St Dimas went to heaven he was to be resurrected and ascended into heaven that much didn’t change. Thus the passage he went to preach to the spirits in prison.
And yes the church did start at Pentacost but 3 sacramaents already predated that day. Baptism, Eucharist, and Confession. They were already valid under the New Covenant. They were to be insituted in the form Jesus already instructed them to do so. If you read really closely Jesus gives them instructions on how to perform the sacraments.
There is no catholic teaching anywhere that these sacraments were not valid until Jesus went to heaven.
Remeber this the New Covenant starts with the Gospels right?
Not the book of Acts. What creates a little confusion is that Jesus ministry was for the Jews in the Book of Acts we see this expanded to include the Gentiles but both Jews and Gentiles were under the same covenant. A little confusing, Yes, even the Judaizers protested. But the apsotles nor the church fathers made a distinction of a third seperate covenant. Its not the OT, NT, and the really NT.

 

[tru_dvotion]

You raise some valid points Maccabees. Anyone else? This is beginning to be interesting. Come to think of it, the Church beginning at Pentecost idea; I picked up from the Charismatic Renewal… Well no wonder if I end up being wrong about it. Come to think of it, this would prove some other points I have tried to make somewhere else earlier.

 

[porthos11]

tru_dvotion:

You raise some valid points Maccabees. Anyone else? This is beginning to be interesting. Come to think of it, the Church beginning at Pentecost idea; I picked up from the Charismatic Renewal… Well no wonder if I end up being wrong about it. Come to think of it, this would prove some other points I have tried to make somewhere else earlier.

Tru,

While I humbly accept Mac’s correction on my baptism mistake, I still agree with the others regarding the Covenant under which the thief died. I still believe it was under the old Covenant because Jesus’ work was not yet completed when he died the reconciliation/expiation was complete, yes, but Jesus still had to break the power of death with his Resurrection. Hence the Mysterium Fidei: “We confess your death Lord and announce your resurrection, until you come in glory” the anamnesis of the whole Paschal Mystery, Passion-Death-Resurrection. When the thief died, he had to enter Sheol first, which can be thought of as an OT Covenant “waiting” area for the pre-Christian just. There he listened with the OT saints to Jesus as he preached to them.

And Tru, you are correct, Pentecost is actually the birthday of the Church. That is the time the Holy Spirit came upon the Apostles and the lay believers, uniting them into the Mystical Body, and the mission of evangelization began.

 

[porthos11]

Maccabees:

Remeber this the New Covenant starts with the Gospels right?
Not the book of Acts. What creates a little confusion is that Jesus ministry was for the Jews in the Book of Acts we see this expanded to include the Gentiles but both Jews and Gentiles were under the same covenant. A little confusing, Yes, even the Judaizers protested. But the apsotles nor the church fathers made a distinction of a third seperate covenant. Its not the OT, NT, and the really NT.

Hi Mac,

The new Covenant starts with the Paschal Mystery. Everything before the first Triduum is Old Covenant, and even Jesus and his family observed this: the ritual purification of our Lady, the reading of the Tanakh in the Synagogue, the dedication of the first-born, his circumcision, and his celebration of the Passover. The new Covenant was inaugurated with the blood of the Lamb of God just as the old Mosaic covenant was sealed with the blood of the sacrificial lamb. The precise starting point of the new and everlasting Covenant is the Paschal event.

Now as for the validity of the sacraments, of course they were valid even before the event. Jesus elevated marriage to the dignity of a sacrament early in his ministry. Confession is not a problem, since the Paschal event was completed by then. He ordained his apostles at the Last Supper. So yes, all these instituted sacraments were valid. But all of these derive their efficacy from the Paschal event, otherwise they mean nothing.

So, back to the good thief. So he was baptized by desire, great. It was sacramental because of the institution of baptism already in place then. But the economy was not completely in place yet. I would hazard a guess that his baptism was valid, but not yet brought out to full effect because of two things lacking:

1. The Holy Spirit had not come upon him. Other than Christ, he had not descended on anyone before Pentecost.
2. Baptism is dying and being buried with Christ and RISING again. Rising again cannot be done before Christ’s own Resurrection (Lazarus and company do not contradict this; these guys experienced only a temporary restoration of natural life. We are talking supernatural life in Christ here), because of his mission to set us free from the law of sin and death would yet be completed on Easter.

So maybe I would put forth a theological supposition that the fullness the thief already bore the seal of baptism but the effects of that baptism had to wait till Easter Sunday (hahah . “theological supposition” my foot. Like I’m some kind of 21st-century Church Father or something. I’m waaaay out of my league here )…

Anyway, these are all speculations, and I know may have differing opinions. For all I know, I could be outright wrong. Perhaps I’m just rambling with temporal issues it’s possible none of this is really the case because God is beyond time anyway.

If anyone can present any expert stuff confirming or refuting this post, please do so, I want to know for sure myself.

PS. Regarding Acts. Acts is actually part II of the Gospel according to St. Luke.

 

[tru_dvotion]

porthos11 I’m waaaay out of my league here

Me too. But what you are saying about the new Covenant starting with the Pascal Mystery is very persuasive. To my knowledge, the lamb consumed at the last supper, was not taken into the temple for slaughter, (as it would have been under the old law) and how could it have been, since the pascal lamb was going to be Jesus. Yes that is it, this must be it… This is rather exciting:bounce: Any other insights anyone?

 

[jimmy]

dave152:

In recent discussion with a protestant friend, we were talking in regards to salvation. He is adamant that salvation is only achieved through a personal relationship with Christ. That faith alone in Jesus’s death and resurrection is all that is needed to reach Heaven.

Of course I supported my belief in good works as also being necessary to achieve salvation. He agreed that good works are indeed Christ-like, but are not necessary for salvation. Several times he pointed to the example of the fellow on the cross next to Jesus whom Jesus granted enternal salvation just before his death, without his ever performing good deeds.

My best answer is that this man didn’t achieve faith in Christ until moments before his death, and this particular case, through Christ’s mercy he was granted salvation on his faith alone.

Any more help in this sure to be ongoing discussion would be appreciated.

The man on the cross truely was sorry for what he did. He confessed to Jesus and he was forgiven. If he would have had the chance to change his life he would have. Christ is very mercyful on us sinners.

 

[Steven_Merten]

Hello Dave,

Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are in heaven.

NAB LUK 13:28
And there will be wailing and grinding of teeth when you see Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God and you yourselves cast out.

According to Isaiah, the way they got there is through the “arm of the Lord” (the Right Hand of God whom we know is Jesus Christ).

**NAB ISAIAH 53:4 **(Isaiah to the Israelites.)

Who would believe what we have heard? To whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? He grew up like a sapling before him, like a shoot from the parched earth; There was in him no stately bearing to make us look at him, nor appearance that would attract us to him. He was spurned and avoided by men, a man of suffering, accustomed to infirmity, One of those from whom men hide their faces, spurned, and we held him in no esteem.

Yet it was our infirmities that he bore, our sufferings that he endured, While we thought of him as stricken, as one smitten by God and afflicted. But he was pierced for our offenses, crushed for our sins, Upon him was the chastisement that makes us whole, by his stripes we were healed. We had all gone astray like sheep, each following his own way; But the LORD laid upon him the guilt of us all.

Our God is a forgiving God. Even the intent of sinners to turn from evil to do good will be accepted by God. The desire that they would now, if they could do it all over, obey God with all thier hearts, is accepted by God as love through obedience. In God’s eyes, this is fair.

NAB EZEKIEL 33:12

As for you, son of man, tell your countrymen: The virtue which man has practiced will not save him on the day that he sins; neither will the wickedness that a man has done bring about his downfall on the day that he turns from his wickedness (nor can the virtuous man, when he sins, remain alive).

NAB LUKE 15:25 The Prodigal Son.
He said to his father in reply: For years now I have slaved for you. I never disobeyed one of your orders. yet you never gave me so much as a kid goat to celebrate with my friends. Then, when this son of yours returns after having gone through your property with loose women, you kill the fatted calf for him.

NAB EZEKIEL 18:23

Do I indeed derive any pleasure from the death of the wicked? says the Lord GOD. Do I not rather rejoice when he turns from his evil way that he may live? And if the virtuous man turns from the path of virtue to do evil, the same kind of abominable things that the wicked man does, can he do this and still live? None of his virtuous deeds shall be remembered, because he has broken faith and committed sin; because of this, he shall die. You say, “The Lord’s way is not fair!” Hear now, house of Israel: Is it my way that is unfair, or rather, are not your ways unfair?

NAB EZEKIEL 33:17

Yet your countrymen say, “The way of the LORD is not fair!”; but it is their way that is not fair. When a virtuous man turns away from what is right and does wrong, he shall die for it. But when a wicked man turns away from wickedness and does what is right and just, because of this he shall live. And still you say, “The way of the LORD is not fair!”? I will judge every one of you according to his ways, O house of Israel.

Please visit Repentance To Service
Sometimes when people see God’s Old Testement forgiveness they have a better understanding of God’s same forgiveness in the New Testement.

Peace in Christ,
Steven Merten
www.ILOVEYOUGOD.com

 

[tru_dvotion]

Very nice posts. Now how about the question when the New Church began?

 

[Kecharitomene]

The Church has always celebrated its birthday on Pentecost and is an accepted fact that the Church “began” its function at the descent of the Holy Spirit. I have tried to find the reasoning in the Catholic Encyclopedia, but I didn’t have much luck

I think Peter’s speach indicates that it was on this day that the Church began its public ministry as Vicar of Christ

 

[Maccabees]

tru_dvotion:

Very nice posts. Now how about the question when the New Church began?

Uh I think this conversation has lost its tracks.

The church began at Pentecost when the Holy Spirit came upon Mary and the aposltes I don’t think there is a disagreement there.

My contention was that the thief was saved by means of the New Covenant. Baptism of desire is a New Covenant concept. He was saved by Jesus who is the new covenant in the flesh. This man was born again by water (by desire) and the spirit. This man was a born again Christian.

In the sense that the sacrifice of the new Covenant had not been completed by Christ death it is true the Old Covenant had not completely closed. But remember this the covenant not only overlapped When Jesus had his ministry it overlapped for 40 years after his death. The Old Covenant sacrifices continued for 40 years side by side with the New Covenant fulfillment of the mass. This did not stop till the destruction of the temple. By this reasoning we would start the New Covenant with the Book of Revelation. We don’t we begin with the gospels for that is when the new Covenant began. True it was not fulfilled till the paschal lamb was sacrificed. The New Covenant seemingly is revealed in stages the birth, ministry, death, resurrection, ascension, pentacost, the church age and within that church age we find the covenant now open to Gentiles this new covenat reveals itself overtime there seems to be a process of revelation within this covenant.

What I am saying part of the covenat (sacraments of Baptism and the Mass) was revealed to us by the time of Christ crucifixion however obviously not all things were revealed some where to be revealed later. Not only does the story not end at the crucifixion nor the ascension but it carries to the other books of the New Covenant.

But what I am getting to was how was this man saved was he saved by the Old Covenant law? I really doubt it they guy was a thief and probably lived a reprobate life too busy in the life of crime to fulfill the law of works that the Old Covenant required.

Under this law he would have been surely condemned. The fact that evangelicals brings this up point to the valid part of their interpretation. That this man was saved by faith and not by works of the law. I would agree. However they miss the concept of the baptism of desire which is problematic. Also they extend his special circumstance to those who live not tied to a cross. Yet these unobstructed Christians find no time to cooperate with God’s grace in order to do good works. This man was ultimately saved by God’s grace through faith that is found so explicitly in the New Covenant.

 

[porthos11]

Maccabees:

But what I am getting to was how was this man saved was he saved by the Old Covenant law? I really doubt it they guy was a thief and probably lived a reprobate life too busy in the life of crime to fulfill the law of works that the Old Covenant required.

Hi Mac,

Agreed. The the letter to the Hebrews says the NO ONE is saved by the Old Covenant. The animal sacrifices of the Mosaic law served to foreshadow the true once-for-all Sacrifice, but they themselves had no expiating power.

So, yes, absolutely no one is saved by the Old Covenant. Everyone, including those under the Old Covenant are saved through the Sacrifice of Christ, no doubt, so in general all are saved through the New Covenant, not the Old.

So now the question is whether salvation came to the thief as if he had died under the Old or New Covenant (meaning, how would he have acquired salvation?) Would he enter heaven directly because of his justification (of which there is no doubt) or would he have to take his place with the Old Covenant saints and join them as they entered heaven upon the arrival of Easter?

This is what I mean when I say I believe the man still died under the Old Covenant, because he had to join the rest of the gang in Sheol, rather then in heaven or purgatory. His baptism by desire marked him with Christ’s seal, so that saved him from hell, but while Christ still preached in Sheol in before his Resurrection, the OT saints had to wait there till Jesus returned to his body. It’s highly unlikely that the man went to heaven before Abraham and Co.

Well, there is the matter of the man’s baptism, and the matter of him dying before Jesus’ Resurrection. Maybe you’re right, there’s a kind of overlap.

Under this law he would have been surely condemned. The fact that evangelicals brings this up point to the valid part of their interpretation. That this man was saved by faith and not by works of the law. I would agree. However they miss the concept of the baptism of desire which is problematic. Also they extend his special circumstance to those who live not tied to a cross. Yet these unobstructed Christians find no time to cooperate with God’s grace in order to do good works. This man was ultimately saved by God’s grace through faith that is found so explicitly in the New Covenant.

Agreed too. In fact, we all would stand condemned under the Old Covenant (cf. Letter to the Hebrews). It is only because of the promise of a Savior that the Patriarchs, Prophets and the rest received their salvation through the New Covenant.

And yes, in all cases, including all born under Old Covenant and we under the New, salvation is always through the Blood of Christ, given to us by grace through faith…and working in love. Ultimately, we see that the man had all these.

 

[Maccabees]

porthos11:

So now the question is whether salvation came to the thief as if he had died under the Old or New Covenant (meaning, how would he have acquired salvation?) Would he enter heaven directly because of his justification (of which there is no doubt) or would he have to take his place with the Old Covenant saints and join them as they entered heaven upon the arrival of Easter?

This is what I mean when I say I believe the man still died under the Old Covenant, because he had to join the rest of the gang in Sheol, rather then in heaven or purgatory. His baptism by desire marked him with Christ’s seal, so that saved him from hell, but while Christ still preached in Sheol in before his Resurrection, the OT saints had to wait there till Jesus returned to his body. It’s highly unlikely that the man went to heaven before Abraham and Co.

Well, there is the matter of the man’s baptism, and the matter of him dying before Jesus’ Resurrection. Maybe you’re right, there’s a kind of overlap.

Agreed too. In fact, we all would stand condemned under the Old Covenant (cf. Letter to the Hebrews). It is only because of the promise of a Savior that the Patriarchs, Prophets and the rest received their salvation through the New Covenant.

And yes, in all cases, including all born under Old Covenant and we under the New, salvation is always through the Blood of Christ, given to us by grace through faith…and working in love. Ultimately, we see that the man had all these.

You know what the more we write about the subject the closer we are getting to each others positions.

Like I said this man was saved by the New Covenant Baptism and the New Covenant faith in Christ ultimately fullfilled by the death of the new Covenant paschal Lamb. Like I said I think there is an overlap here, Thus I beleive while he was saved by the New Covenant Baptism he might have been one of the few individulas baptized who went to OT Sheol. As Christ went to preach to the spirits in prison i would agree the OT saints were there.

But I think it is an open question if the good thief was there. In Catholic teaching temporal suffering on earth can serve as a indulgenge becuase we are being cleansed through our suffering on earth. What more temporal suffering is their than crucifixion? This pain one would assume was done in a state of grace after his baptism of desire.

So it is possible he skipped Sheol altogether. Many catholic theologians freely admit Catholic Purgatory is a take on Judaism Sheol so this New Covenant and Old Covenant distinction we are making may not be a big as differncne as we are making it.
Obviously in Purgatory you get out to Heaven and in Sheol in our tradition the OT saints were stuck till Jesus set them free.
So he might have had to visit a very similar place either way.

I don’t think the Bible nor Catholic tradition answers this question definitely its an open question we can ask the good thief.
Another note when Christ said “This Day you will be with me in paradise” well Today doesn’t necessarily mean a 24 hour time period as eternity is outside of time so maybe’s the thiefs experience from the cross to heaven (given this assumption) seemed like “this day” to him. Or maybe like you assumed paradise was Abraham’s bossum. Something That I think is possible but not definite. So in the end I wrote a lot to tell you I don’t know for sure.

 

[martino]

A perfect act of contrition not only forgives all sins, mortal and venial, it also expiates all temporal punishment (meaning no purgatory)!

Jesus reads our hearts, and He alone knows when someone has given a perfect act of contrition. Most of us are only capable of imperfect acts of contrition. But if you are in suddenly in danger of death and have no recourse to a priest for confession or annointing, then perfect act of contrition is very pleasing to God.

Second point, if the Church received from Jesus, the authority to grant indulgences; Certainly Jesus Himself can grant the same thing!!

 

[Fiat]

Dear Porthos11

Thank you for your explication on this issue!

Fiat

 

[mercygate]

porthos11:

1. The Holy Spirit had not come upon him. Other than Christ, he had not descended on anyone before Pentecost.

Great post, porthos. But we should ask how Christ’s breathing on the Apostles on Easter night relates to the coming of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost.

I have not thought this through, but it seems clear that it MUST be both a different thing yet also somehow be related to the wider spiritual gift of the 50th day.

Anybody game to speculate? Anybody know a good discussion of this – perhaps from the Early Fathers?