Protestants: The thief on the cross

[cw4lsu]

Any time I have a discussion concerning what happens at death, who goes to heaven, Purgatory, etc. most fundamentalists & evangelicals I come in contact with deny the existance of Purgatory by bringing up the case of the theif on the cross and the fact and that even though he was a sinful man he would go directly that day to be with the Lord in Paradise. You cant use the Bible(which is their staple) to defend yourself because they dont have the verses which defend the idea of Purgatory in theirs.

Any ideas of how to “defend” myself against this argument the next time it comes up?? Thanks.

 

[praise_Jesus_1]

I’m just throwing this out there,

But from my understanding our suffering here on earth also can cleanse us and purify us. In this case the thief on the cross would be doing a lot of suffering for his sins in his last hours.

I hope I’m not mistaken but I thought I learned somewhere that our human suffering can be offered up as a sacrifice and could hopefully shorten our time in purgatory.

 

[Carlan]

Any time I have a discussion concerning what happens at death, who goes to heaven, Purgatory, etc. most fundamentalists & evangelicals I come in contact with deny the existance of Purgatory by bringing up the case of the theif on the cross and the fact and that even though he was a sinful man he would go directly that day to be with the Lord in Paradise. You cant use the Bible(which is their staple) to defend yourself because they dint have the verses which defend the idea of Purgatory in theirs.

Any ideas of how to “defend” myself against this argument the next time it comes up?? Thanks.

hello cw41su,I think about time’ according to God it isn’t the same as time here on earth.
The good thief was repentant and his punishment on the cross for his sin, Certainly could have counted for purgation, Plus Jesus didn’t go to be with the Father immediately upon death, So the good thief would have that time to become purified. What do you think?:thumbsup:Carlan
You are dealing with fundamentalists though, and you know how that goes

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

Just a note from an Episcopalian: I have no problem with Purgatory at all. In fact I’m so glad there is Purgatory, because without it I think I stand little chance of getting into Heaven (and not because I am an Episcopalian ).

I just wonder if it is as distinct from heaven as usually described. I imagine it as a gradual shedding by the soul of to inclination to sin. For some, whose inclination to sin has been shed in this life, it may be unnecessary. For others, it may be a long and painful process, as it is in this life. It may also be a mercy, in that a soul that is unprepared to gaze on the face of God may need “time” to prepare for that.

Please tell me if what I am saying is completely off base.

 

[Carlan]

Just a note from an Episcopalian: I have no problem with Purgatory at all. In fact I’m so glad there is Purgatory, because without it I think I stand little chance of getting into Heaven (and not because I am an Episcopalian ).

I just wonder if it is as distinct from heaven as usually described. I imagine it as a gradual shedding by the soul of to inclination to sin. For some, whose inclination to sin has been shed in this life, it may be unnecessary. For others, it may be a long and painful process, as it is in this life. It may also be a mercy, in that a soul that is unprepared to gaze on the face of God may need “time” to prepare for that.

Please tell me if what I am saying is completely off base.

helloUsbek de Persre, that’s good, The Beatitudes says only the pure in heart will see the face of God. With our propensity to ward sin and considering temporal punishment to deal with after repentance and reconciliation with the Father. all of your purification would have to be done down here ,otherwise you have purify in Purgatory.Tell me if I’m wrong. Either way:heaven: the main result will be forever with God.:heaven:Carlan

 

[imkingdad]

Any time I have a discussion concerning what happens at death, who goes to heaven, Purgatory, etc. most fundamentalists & evangelicals I come in contact with deny the existance of Purgatory by bringing up the case of the theif on the cross and the fact and that even though he was a sinful man he would go directly that day to be with the Lord in Paradise. You cant use the Bible(which is their staple) to defend yourself because they dont have the verses which defend the idea of Purgatory in theirs.

Any ideas of how to “defend” myself against this argument the next time it comes up?? Thanks.

Hope this can help as well.
Christ being God would have the Knowledge of the degree of the Thief’s sincerity and whether or not he made a truly perfect act of Contrition, a Perfect act of contrition would go a long way in ameliorating the Purgatory Penance. Add to it the Fact that as GOD, He most certainly could waive any & all Purgatory time for this thief and any statement to the contrary would be an Imposition upon GOD thus Limiting God’s power & authority, something that no mere Human should even consider. (reference, the Immaculate Conception for God’s ability to waive the so-called rules in the eyes of men.) We also have the stories of the OT fathers that were caught up to Heaven ( and whom Most Protestants believe must return to earth & die at some point in time) Again, God waived the rules for these.

However God never waived the rules for any of the Apostles or Paul or anyone else that we know of. So I guess God can be arbitrary and has been as the Bible clearly shows time & again.

One can also make the argument that since Christ had not yet died nor Risen at the time of the statement that the Thief could fall under the OT Laws and could have descended to Sheol/ the DEAD with Christ and then after these had been preached to & the Gates of Heaven opened he then ascended before or with those that were released from Sheol by Christ. there is no mention of how they were preached to or released, individually, in groups or all at once, all we can do is speculate. - this is an area where there seems to be little more that Traditional Teachings & beliefs - certainly very little in the way of scriptural texts to support or refute it. Protestants are known for doing a whole lot of playing in these “grey” areas, especially to suit the specific needs of a particular Faith based group.

If I have misspoken I pray and welcome correction.
Yours in Christ.

Vivat Jesus

 

[Reuben_J]

Any time I have a discussion concerning what happens at death, who goes to heaven, Purgatory, etc. most fundamentalists & evangelicals I come in contact with deny the existance of Purgatory by bringing up the case of the theif on the cross and the fact and that even though he was a sinful man he would go directly that day to be with the Lord in Paradise. You cant use the Bible(which is their staple) to defend yourself because they dont have the verses which defend the idea of Purgatory in theirs.

Any ideas of how to “defend” myself against this argument the next time it comes up?? Thanks.

I would like to see this through the doctrine of Baptism. How I wish I could die just after Baptism because that would be one moment when we are certainly in a state of grace and therefore heaven is assured for us. Baptism is where the old sins are washed away and we are new without sin and as white as snow. No wonder the symbolism of white clothes during baptism is very relevant.

In an extraordinary circumstance a Baptism of desire can be administered especially when there is no time to prepare for a proper Baptism, for example in a near death situation. Baptism of desire is of course as good as a conventional Baptism in the circumstance.

I would liken the thief on the cross as receiving Baptism of desire from the Lord and thus assured of a place in heaven. It does not matter that Baptism is not mentioned at the cross. The Lord was dying. Any sermon would be impossible; there being no time for that. But the Lord was certainly explicit on the need of Baptism for the forgiveness of sin during the years of his ministry. He allowed himself to be baptized by John and he commanded Baptism (Matt 28). If this is the criteria for entering into the new life, there is no reason to suppose that this is omitted for the thief on the cross.

Yes, Baptism of desire.

God bless.

 

[kepha1]

*A killer proof for the Scriptural nature of Purgatory can be found by comparing Luke 16:19-31 with Luke 23:43. In Luke 16, Jesus speaks of the poor man Lazarus being taken up to the “Bosom of Abraham.” However, despite what is commonly presumed, this cannot be Heaven, since souls did not enter Heaven at this time (not even according to Jewish theology), but awaited Jesus’ death, Resurrection, and Ascension for this. Until the Lord opens the gates of Heaven (“I go to prepare a place for you”), it was not possible for humanity to enter into the Presence of God. Rather, the God-man needed to do this first in order to make a place for humanity before the Throne of the Father. Rather, this “Bosom of Abraham” in Luke 16 is what Jewish oral tradition refers to as “the Paradise of the Fathers” --the Garden of Eden, which was withdrawn from the earth; the Jewish equivalent to the Greco-Roman/pagan idea of the “Ellesian Fields” --a pleasant place, but part of Sheol/Hades/Death nonetheless. *

*Now, … To show that this is the case, one only need to look at Luke 23:43, where Jesus tells the Good Thief, " This day you will be with me in Paradise. " Notice, here, that Jesus does not say, " …in Heaven." …And this is because, as we all know, Jesus did NOT go to Heaven THAT DAY. Rather, Jesus spent 3 days in the tomb! …Not rising until Sunday morning. …And we know from Scripture (e.g. 1 Peter 3:19 & 4:6) that Jesus’ soul spent that day AMONG THE DEAD in Sheol. …And, as John 20:17 hammers home for us, EVEN ON SUNDAY MORNING, Jesus had STILL “not yet ascended to the Father.” So, the “Paradise” Jesus is talking about in Luke 23 is absolutely not Heaven itself. Rather, He is talking about the Paradise of the Fathers, and he is promising the Good Thief (a justly-condemned Jewish criminal) that, far from being condemned to Gehenna, he will be with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and all the righteous patriarchs (models of Judaism) in the Paradise of the Fathers. And this would have been enough for this Jew to die in peace --saved from hell, yet not fully-sanctified so as to immediately enter Heaven. *
http://www.catholic-legate.com/qa/purghist.html

 

[imkingdad]

I would like to see this through the doctrine of Baptism. How I wish I could die just after Baptism because that would be one moment when we are certainly in a state of grace and therefore heaven is assured for us. Baptism is where the old sins are washed away and we are new without sin and as white as snow. No wonder the symbolism of white clothes during baptism is very relevant.

In an extraordinary circumstance a Baptism of desire can be administered especially when there is no time to prepare for a proper Baptism, for example in a near death situation. Baptism of desire is of course as good as a conventional Baptism in the circumstance.

I would liken the thief on the cross as receiving Baptism of desire from the Lord and thus assured of a place in heaven. It does not matter that Baptism is not mentioned at the cross. The Lord was dying. Any sermon would be impossible; there being no time for that. But the Lord was certainly explicit on the need of Baptism for the forgiveness of sin during the years of his ministry. He allowed himself to be baptized by John and he commanded Baptism (Matt 28). If this is the criteria for entering into the new life, there is no reason to suppose that this is omitted for the thief on the cross.

Yes, Baptism of desire.

God bless.

TY Reuben, Well Put! The Baptism of Desire did slip my Mind earlier but the consequences of it are Just & Valid. My only question is where are we on the “quote” timeline. Are we working pre or post resurrection. Are we still in the process of Fulfilling the Law and Prophecy. Nit-picking on my part at best.

 

[imkingdad]

A killer proof for the Scriptural nature of Purgatory can be found by comparing Luke 16:19-31 with Luke 23:43. In Luke 16, Jesus speaks of the poor man Lazarus being taken up to the “Bosom of Abraham.” However, despite what is commonly presumed, this cannot be Heaven, since souls did not enter Heaven at this time (not even according to Jewish theology), but awaited Jesus’ death, Resurrection, and Ascension for this. Until the Lord opens the gates of Heaven (“I go to prepare a place for you”), it was not possible for humanity to enter into the Presence of God. And this would have been enough for this Jew to die in peace --saved from hell, yet not fully-sanctified so as to immediately enter Heaven.
http://www.catholic-legate.com/qa/purghist.html

TY for you additional Insights & knowledge on this issue as well.

 

[Reuben_J]

TY Reuben, Well Put! The Baptism of Desire did slip my Mind earlier but the consequences of it are Just & Valid. My only question is where are we on the “quote” timeline. Are we working pre or post resurrection. Are we still in the process of Fulfilling the Law and Prophecy. Nit-picking on my part at best.

Hi. I was trying to put in my 2 cents for the OP. The idea of Baptism of desire is not Catholic traditional teaching to justify the Lord’s promise and acceptance of the thief on the cross. But that’s because we have no problem with it until Protestants use this to question the necessity of Baptism. As I had worked it out, it seems logical to me that the thief did commit himself to believe in Jesus; if not explicit at least by implication. As in the case of Baptism of desire, this thief fits in to it nicely.

As for quotes I would use those verses that support Baptism as a point of entry to the new faith. Protestants who do not agree on Baptism will not accept this anyway, so I don’t think we will make any headway in this argument with them. The legitimacy on Baptism argument includes the Baptism of Jesus by John; that Jesus allowed himself to undergo this process certainly meant that he was serious about it. This couples with the fact that he commanded it in the last chapter of Mathew, making the necessity even more significant, which we should not ignore. Later in post-resurection in the Acts, Baptism seemed to be nearly always mentioned whenever there was new convert.

If Baptism is necessary for entry into the new life of Christianity or believers then it ties with the Baptism of desire for the thief on the cross. Certain denomination of Protestants can ignore Baptism but it certainly is prescribed for in the Bible.

God bless you.

 

[ctkrcia]

I can think of two rebuttals:

In the New American Bible, Luke 23:43 says, "He replied to him, ‘Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.’ "

In the original Greek, there were no punctuation marks. No commas. Not even periods. It was the sentence structure that told the reader where one thought began and ended. When this phrase was transliterated, it came out as shown above. BUT! It could have been, "He replied to him, ‘Amen, I say to you today, you will be with me in Paradise.’ " See the difference? In the first case, the comma is before “today”. In the second case, the comma is AFTER “today”. Each has a completely different meaning.

I saw a T Shirt once that read, “GODISNOWHERE”. Depending on how it struck you, it could be read, “GOD IS NOWHERE” or “GOD IS NOW HERE”. Same shirt, two different meanings. The same principle applies to this verse.

The other point is that we are bound by the sacraments, but GOD is not. He can admit into his kingdom whomever he wants. He can forgive all sins by any sinner at any time. He can bestow His grace at His pleasure. But, in absence of knowing God’s will 100% of the time, we have been given the gift of His Church to guide along our path until we meet Him face to face. I try to always be aware of this and not try to apply to God the laws given to man.

Bottom line, we are all his children and he can treat us all differently for anything, including eternal salvation. After all, all creation, all blessings, all eternity are His. We do not and cannot know His will 100%. To know that would make us His equal, or at least equal in His knowledge. Only one man fits that. And He was God, too!

Hope this helps.
Jeff

 

[Don9of11]

Any time I have a discussion concerning what happens at death, who goes to heaven, Purgatory, etc. most fundamentalists & evangelicals I come in contact with deny the existance of Purgatory by bringing up the case of the theif on the cross and the fact and that even though he was a sinful man he would go directly that day to be with the Lord in Paradise. You cant use the Bible(which is their staple) to defend yourself because they dont have the verses which defend the idea of Purgatory in theirs.

Any ideas of how to “defend” myself against this argument the next time it comes up?? Thanks.

I had a similar discussion with my nephew who is a fallen away Catholic, only it wasn’t Purgatory, it was “did the thief die under the old covenant or the new”. ( see here )

Here is something that might help. From The Faith Database on the topic of Purgatory.

The tradition of the Jews is put forth with precision and clearness in II Maccabees. Judas, the commander of the forces of Israel, "making a gathering . . . sent twelve thousand drachmas of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead). And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. “It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins” (II Mach., xii, 43-46). At the time of the Maccabees the leaders of the people of God had no hesitation in asserting the efficacy of prayers offered for the dead, in order that those who had departed this life might find pardon for their sins and the hope of eternal resurrection.

There are several passages in the New Testament that point to a process of purification after death. Thus, Jesus Christ declares (Matthew 12:32): “And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come.” According to St. Isidore of Seville (Deord. creatur., c. xiv, n. 6) these words prove that in the next life “some sins wil be forgiven and purged away by a certain purifying fire.” St. Augustine also argues “that some sinners are not forgiven either in this world or in the next would not be truly said unless there were other [sinners] who, though not forgiven in this world, are forgiven in the world to come” (De Civ. Dei, XXI, xxiv). The same interpretation is given by Gregory the Great (Dial., IV, xxxix); St. Bede (commentary on this text); St. Bernard (Sermo lxvi in Cantic., n. 11) and other eminent theological writers.

A further argument is supplied by St. Paul in I Cor., iii, 11-1,5: “For other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid; which is Christ Jesus. Now if any man build upon this foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay stubble: Every man’s work shall be manifest; for the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work, of what sort it is. If any man’s work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man’s work burn, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.” While this passage presents considerable difficulty, it is regarded by many of the Fathers and theologians as evidence for the existence of an intermediate state in which the dross of lighter transgressions will be burnt away, and the soul thus purified will be saved.

 

[LionHeart777]

As everyone can see, I have much Catholic Theology to explore. But here are some comments from some knowledgeable people regarding purgatory:

“Some imagine that the Catholic Church has an elaborate doctrine of purgatory worked out, but there are only three essential components of the doctrine: (1) that a purification after death exists, (2) that it involves some kind of pain, and (3) that the purification can be assisted by the prayers and offerings by the living to God. Other ideas, such that purgatory is a particular “place” in the afterlife or that it takes time to accomplish, are speculations rather than doctrines.” (catholic.com/library/Roots_of_Purgatory.asp) (accessed 4/ 27/ 09)

As Jimmy Akin pointed out in his debate w/ James White on “The Bible Answer Man”, it is unknown how time works in the afterlife and the possibility of the final purification being instantaneous is not ruled out (as you can also see in the quote above.)

He also added this below in an article about the final purification in Eastern Orthodox thought:

“Rather than using the image of fire for the purification (cf. 1 Cor. 3:10–15), Orthodox often picture the soul passing through a series of “toll houses” on its road to heavenly glory. It’s a different image, but it points to the fundamental reality that the saved soul may have to undergo some form of ordeal before it is admitted to full heavenly glory.” (catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0504bt.asp) (4/ 27/ 09)

I think that the position that Jesus had not yet gone to free the souls in Abraham’s Bosom when He said this is a valid point. Also, as someone mentioned, the penitent thief did suffer quite a bit I would imagine on his own cross next to Jesus. Also, we know from Scripture that He has mercy on whom He will and hardens whom He will (maybe not an exact quote.)

 

[Danno2281]

I can think of two rebuttals:

In the New American Bible, Luke 23:43 says, "He replied to him, ‘Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.’ "

In the original Greek, there were no punctuation marks. No commas. Not even periods. It was the sentence structure that told the reader where one thought began and ended. When this phrase was transliterated, it came out as shown above. BUT! It could have been, "He replied to him, ‘Amen, I say to you today, you will be with me in Paradise.’ " See the difference? In the first case, the comma is before “today”. In the second case, the comma is AFTER “today”. Each has a completely different meaning.

I saw a T Shirt once that read, “GODISNOWHERE”. Depending on how it struck you, it could be read, “GOD IS NOWHERE” or “GOD IS NOW HERE”. Same shirt, two different meanings. The same principle applies to this verse.

The other point is that we are bound by the sacraments, but GOD is not. He can admit into his kingdom whomever he wants. He can forgive all sins by any sinner at any time. He can bestow His grace at His pleasure. But, in absence of knowing God’s will 100% of the time, we have been given the gift of His Church to guide along our path until we meet Him face to face. I try to always be aware of this and not try to apply to God the laws given to man.

Bottom line, we are all his children and he can treat us all differently for anything, including eternal salvation. After all, all creation, all blessings, all eternity are His. We do not and cannot know His will 100%. To know that would make us His equal, or at least equal in His knowledge. Only one man fits that. And He was God, too!

Hope this helps.
Jeff

The lack of punctuation still does not admit of a different meaning. "Today I say to you. ’ is a tuatology. I can’t be speaking in the past or the future, I can only be speaking at this moment. Your transposition is in line with the J. Witnesses who deny the continued exixstence of the soul after death.
Perhaps the thief was the recipient of the first indulgence.

 

[LionHeart777]

Also, we know from Scripture that He has mercy on whom He will and hardens whom He will (maybe not an exact quote.)

I think Jeff hit on this point above; I’m going over old ground (probably not just there too.)