Puzzling Answer in "Daily 5"

  • Thread starter Thread starter ATL_Granny
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

ATL_Granny

Guest
I recently signed up for the “Daily 5” – a daily email that sends five different questions from Catholic Answers along with the Apologist’s answer. Sometimes they have me scratching my head, but this one just seems flat-out wrong. :eek:

Question: “Is the story of the good thief in Luke 23:39-43 proof that baptism isn’t necessary?”

Answer: *** “First, it isn’t clear that baptism had yet been mandated by Jesus before he met the thief**. If it had been, we do not know for certain that the thief hadn’t already been baptized. In any case, the thief clearly underwent a conversion at some point during his crucifixion, and it seems evident that he would have desired baptism before his death had he known of its necessity. That would have been sufficient, because the Church recognizes that, in such a case, the desire for baptism brings about the fruits of baptism. (CCC1258)”*

The part in the bolded area is where I have a problem. Throughout the NT, Christ says that Baptism is necessary for salvation. (I agree that the thief could qualify for salvation under the “desire for Baptism” - CCC#1260)

As a matter of fact, CCC#1257 says: *“The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is nececcary for salvation. [Jn 3:5] He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nationas and to baptize them. [Mt 28:19-20] Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. [Mk 16:16] The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are ‘reborn of water and the Spirit.’” *

Why would the apologist answer in the way that he did?? :confused:
 
Hmmm… It seems if it isn’t clear that baptism had yet been mandated by Jesus before he met the thief, then that time would be a little late! Granted, at the end of Matthew and John, Jesus commissions the apostles to go forth and baptize all nations. But still, that would only make sense if Baptism was clearly understood by them.

What is important to remember is that we are bound by the sacraments - God is not. God (any part of the trinity) can operate under any rules He wants. If a non-baptized person dies, God, at His sole discretion, could grant them eternal life in His presence. That is entirely up to God.

That being said, however, scripture and tradition are abundantly clear that baptism is necessary for salvation. Therefore, we all should be baptized out of obedience to Him.
 
Gosh, 44 views and only one response. Am I making mountains out of molehills here? To me, the apologist’s answer seemed to be way off. Maybe it’s not — or I’m interpreting it wrong.

Any comments? 🍿
 
OK, I’ll toss it out. Baptism was NOT necessary until after the Pentecost.

The point you brought up about Matthew 28 and Mark 16 occur AFTER Jesus “saved” the thief, so they can’t be used as rules yet.

The part you mention in John 3:5 is correct, but it’s important to note that Baptisms done prior to the Pentecost were not Sacramental; in other words, not until Jesus went away and sent the Holy Spirit (at Pentecost). This was one of the promises He made during the Farewell Discourse in John’s Gospel (chapter 13-15).

How do we know that? Do you remember those that were baptized in Acts but hadn’t received the Holy Spirit? When asked, they revealed that they had received the Baptism of John (the Baptists), not the Sacramental Baptism that Peter set as a guideline for entering the Kingdom of Heaven (Acts 2).

So, returning to the thief, he was brought into Paradise simply by the Grace of God!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top