The Good Thief

[broski234]

This is in response to the subject of the good thief that was mentioned in the thread “Necessity of Baptism”.

If the good thief had kept his mouth shut…had not rebuked the bad thief…had not said anything to Jesus…would he still have been saved? I consider it a great and mighty work for someone with nails through his hands and feet, struggling to breathe because of the fluid building up in his lungs, to use some of his precious breath to defend Christ.

Also, the New Covenant had not yet been instituted…the Old Covenant was still in effect. The Old Covenant equivalent of baptism was circumcision…and this thief being a Jew, he was undoubtedly circumcised. Therefore, the fact that he wasn’t baptized (as far as we know) is not really relevant.

Plus, if you consider that Scripture tells us that the act of having faith is, in and of itself, a work (John 6:27-29), then it is not possible to be saved by faith alone…the act of having faith is a work of the intellect and a work of the will.

 

[CentralFLJames]

This is in response to the subject of the good thief that was mentioned in the thread “Necessity of Baptism”.

If the good thief had kept his mouth shut…had not rebuked the bad thief…had not said anything to Jesus…would he still have been saved? I consider it a great and mighty work for someone with nails through his hands and feet, struggling to breathe because of the fluid building up in his lungs, to use some of his precious breath to defend Christ.

Also, the New Covenant had not yet been instituted…the Old Covenant was still in effect. The Old Covenant equivalent of baptism was circumcision…and this thief being a Jew, he was undoubtedly circumcised. Therefore, the fact that he wasn’t baptized (as far as we know) is not really relevant.

Plus, if you consider that Scripture tells us that the act of having faith is, in and of itself, a work (John 6:27-29), then it is not possible to be saved by faith alone…the act of having faith is a work of the intellect and a work of the will.

Additionally, in a certain way The Good Thief in recognizing Christ joined his suffering to Christ’s and in that achieved a baptism by desire and repentance of suffrage all in one motion of faith. This is a valid form of baptism as is a baptism by blood (martyrdom). Thus the good thief becomes the first Christian Saint - St. Dismas.

How ironic that the other thief who also suffered did not recognize nor accept Christ and wasted his suffrage for no merit.

Moral of the story - always join your suffering to Christ’s by offering it up to Him least it be wasted.

James

 

[broski234]

Additionally, in a certain way The Good Thief in recognizing Christ joined his suffering to Christ’s and in that achieved a baptism by desire and repentance of suffrage all in one motion of faith. This is a valid form of baptism as is a baptism by blood (martyrdom). Thus the good thief becomes the first Christian Saint - St. Dismas.

How ironic that the other thief who also suffered did not recognize nor accept Christ and wasted his suffrage for no merit.

Moral of the story - always join your suffering to Christ’s by offering it up to Him least it be wasted.

James

You are correct James!

 

[Dchsknight]

I would also say that Jesus took him to heaven, because of his request. He did not ask to be saved. He knew who he was. He knew he was a sinner and did not deserve heaven. He defended Christ and all he asked for, is while he is burning in hell, is for Christ to just remember him. What humble thing to ask God. he acknowledged his Sin and then just asked to be remembered. Jesus then said, Hey body I am gonna go one step farther, Your coming with me!

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

This is in response to the subject of the good thief that was mentioned in the thread “Necessity of Baptism”.

If the good thief had kept his mouth shut…had not rebuked the bad thief…had not said anything to Jesus…would he still have been saved? I consider it a great and mighty work for someone with nails through his hands and feet, struggling to breathe because of the fluid building up in his lungs, to use some of his precious breath to defend Christ.

Also, the New Covenant had not yet been instituted…the Old Covenant was still in effect. The Old Covenant equivalent of baptism was circumcision…and this thief being a Jew, he was undoubtedly circumcised. Therefore, the fact that he wasn’t baptized (as far as we know) is not really relevant.

Plus, if you consider that Scripture tells us that the act of having faith is, in and of itself, a work (John 6:27-29), then it is not possible to be saved by faith alone…the act of having faith is a work of the intellect and a work of the will.

He actually did not need to rebuke the “bad Thief” or defend Christ. All he had to do was turn to Christ and ask His forgiveness. He possibly would have been among the first Baptized Christians if that would have been possible for him, but it wasn’t possible.

 

[broski234]

He actually did not need to rebuke the “bad Thief” or defend Christ. All he had to do was turn to Christ and ask His forgiveness. He possibly would have been among the first Baptized Christians if that would have been possible for him, but it wasn’t possible.

Br. Rich,
I wasn’t necessarily saying that if he had not rebuked the bad thief, he wouldn’t have been saved. That was geared towards the “mighty work” that he did whilst having nails through his hands. But, that work showed tremendous faith and he asked for forgiveness, so he went to paradise with Jesus.

 

[laverita]

Baptism was in effect, The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men? Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things.

John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

And John tried to prevent Him, saying, “I need to be baptized by You, and are You coming to me?

I indeed baptized you with water, but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”

Acts 1:5
for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”

I would say that the no mans works justifies this mans salvation, including his own admitting that he was deserving of the death. He had no works, he laid his faith on the Lamb of God as it was being offered, but this offering had the power to completely, once and for all be the offering for all sins.end of story.

Ephesians 2
7 that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.

Romans 3
19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

The parable, if you will, is that Jesus Baptizes with the Holy Spirit
Any time any place. In this case before He had even over come death. I dont understand why you try to add to it.

Ephesians 1:13
In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.

 

[BRB1]

The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men? Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things.

I indeed baptized you with water, but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”

Acts 1:5
for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”

.

So, what does the Church say is the answer to Christ’s question ?

 

[broski234]

Baptism was in effect, The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men? Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things.

John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

And John tried to prevent Him, saying, “I need to be baptized by You, and are You coming to me?

I indeed baptized you with water, but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”

Acts 1:5
for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”

I would say that the no mans works justifies this mans salvation, including his own admitting that he was deserving of the death. He had no works, he laid his faith on the Lamb of God as it was being offered, but this offering had the power to completely, once and for all be the offering for all sins.end of story.

Ephesians 2
7 that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.

Romans 3
19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

The parable, if you will, is that Jesus Baptizes with the Holy Spirit
Any time any place. In this case before He had even over come death. I dont understand why you try to add to it.

Ephesians 1:13
In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.

I never said baptism wasn’t in effect yet. I said the new covenant wasn’t in effect yet, so being a jew, he was most likely circumcised at birth to be in the covenant with God. See what I mean?

 

[MarcoPolo]

It was impossible for him to have baptism formally by water. The exception doesn’t make the rule.

It’s the same way the centurian’s servant was healed through the intercession of the centurian. Are we supposed to assume from that event that we should not go to Christ on our own even if we’re able? No, the sick servant couldn’t go to Jesus normatively, yet Jesus healed Him all the same.

 

[laverita]

I never said baptism wasn’t in effect yet. I said the new covenant wasn’t in effect yet, so being a jew, he was most likely circumcised at birth to be in the covenant with God. See what I mean?

saved outside of new Covent
No one received salvation by the old Covent except Jesus.
see what I mean

 

[laverita]

It was impossible for him to have baptism formally by water. The exception doesn’t make the rule.

The exception does not support the rule.
The later of those Bible verse support the fact that there is no rule
other than Jesus.

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.

Not of works, that would be baptism, laying of hands you name it. works would also include someone else’s works. No man can give salvation. Or claim a part in it.

It’s the same way the centurian’s servant was healed through the intercession of the centurian. Are we supposed to assume from that event that we should not go to Christ on our own even if we’re able? No, the sick servant couldn’t go to Jesus normatively, yet Jesus healed Him all the same.

Jesus healed the centurions servant. It was not intercession, in the definition that Jesus worked threw the centurian. Jesus had grace and fulfilled the request of the centurion. That made the servant healed.

 

[laverita]

So, what does the Church say is the answer to Christ’s question ?

The question of Johns baptism.
I dont know what the Church says.
I read that Jesus received the Holy Spirit as a dove from heaven, and a voice from heaven This is my Son in whom I am well pleased. After John baptized Him. John also testifies that he is need of Jesus baptism. He also says that Jesus Baptizes with the Holy Spirit. Do you need the Church to clarify that?

 

[laverita]

I never said baptism wasn’t in effect yet. I said the new covenant wasn’t in effect yet, so being a jew, he was most likely circumcised at birth to be in the covenant with God. See what I mean?

This is what you said about the thief.

That was geared towards the “mighty work” that he did whilst having nails through his hands. But, that work showed tremendous faith and he asked for forgiveness, so he went to paradise with Jesus.

You are equating works with salvation.

 

[CentralFLJames]

The exception does not support the rule.
The later of those Bible verse support the fact that there is no rule
other than Jesus.

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.

Not of works, that would be baptism, laying of hands you name it. works would also include someone else’s works. No man can give salvation. Or claim a part in it.

Jesus healed the centurions servant. It was not intercession, in the definition that Jesus worked threw the centurian. Jesus had grace and fulfilled the request of the centurion. That made the servant healed.

You are making a work of faith.

Both thief’s suffered on the cross not because of Jesus but because they were justly or unjustly condemned by men to suffer and God permitted it in either case.

Note here that no lesson of universal salvation is taught. All three were judged together by men as bad. Something was required to differentiate the good from the bad. It was mercy and compassion acting through faith and recognition of injustice that prevailed.

The one thief in his last hours of life used the occasion of suffering and dieing to mock and scorn Jesus. The good thief in the same condition of suffering identified with Christ’s sufferings and was moved to compassion. The good thief showed what mercy he could extend by rebuking and silencing the mocker who tried to deny Christ any final peace in his dying last moments.

Thus the good thief found through mercy and compassion a relationship with Christ. And he offered Christ what little comfort and reparation he could by expressing to the dieing Jesus words of encouragement in Jesus’ belief of The Kingdom to Come. The Good Thief in his final act of thievery thus stole Jesus’ vulnerable heart by asking Jesus if he would open the door and let him share in the dream and hope of His Kingdom. Whether the Good Thief fully believed in The Kingdom to Come or not is not important. What is important is recognizing that good came out of evil and compassion won out over suffering and what was condemned unjustly became an occasion for manifesting elements of The Kingdom here on Earth and the hope and the promise for the ever after.

Faith in action through love - and act of Mercy and a labor of reciprocated love in a trial of suffering that is no different than birthing a child.

James

 

[broski234]

The exception does not support the rule.
The later of those Bible verse support the fact that there is no rule
other than Jesus.

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.

Not of works, that would be baptism, laying of hands you name it. works would also include someone else’s works. No man can give salvation. Or claim a part in it.

You need to keep reading on to Eph 2:10. Are you saying that baptism is just symbolic? It seems as if you are down playing the laying on of hands. Are you?

 

[broski234]

This is what you said about the thief.

You are equating works with salvation.

Yes I believe faith and works are necessary responses in the salvation process. We are saved by God’s grace alone.

 

[laverita]

You are making a work of faith.

Romans 10:17
17 So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Both thief’s suffered on the cross not because of Jesus but because they were justly or unjustly condemned by men to suffer and God permitted it in either case.

Note here that no lesson of universal salvation is taught. All three were judged together by men as bad. Something was required to differentiate the good from the bad. It was mercy and compassion acting through faith and recognition of injustice that prevailed.

The one thief in his last hours of life used the occasion of suffering and dieing to mock and scorn Jesus. The good thief in the same condition of suffering identified with Christ’s sufferings and was moved to compassion. The good thief showed what mercy he could extend by rebuking and silencing the mocker who tried to deny Christ any final peace in his dying last moments.

Thus the good thief found through mercy and compassion a relationship with Christ. And he offered Christ what little comfort and reparation he could by expressing to the dieing Jesus words of encouragement in Jesus’ belief of The Kingdom to Come. The Good Thief in his final act of thievery thus stole Jesus’ vulnerable heart by asking Jesus if he would open the door and let him share in the dream and hope of His Kingdom. Whether the Good Thief fully believed in The Kingdom to Come or not is not important. What is important is recognizing that good came out of evil and compassion won out over suffering and what was condemned unjustly became an occasion for manifesting elements of The Kingdom here on Earth and the hope and the promise for the ever after.

Faith in action through love - and act of Mercy and a labor of reciprocated love in a trial of suffering that is no different than birthing a child.

James

I suppose I will not address your entire comment but it is rather flowery.

Note here that no lesson of universal salvation is taught. All three were judged together by men as bad. Something was required to differentiate the good from the bad. It was mercy and compassion acting through faith and recognition of injustice that prevailed.

No lesson of universal salvation? Jesus is the salvation of the universe.

Something was required indeed, The simple testimony (acceptance) that Jesus is Lord.
This is a glimpse of the salvation that was about to come to the Patriarchs and Prophets, those who the promise of salvation had been spoken threw. The same promise that came to Eve, the same promise spoken to the serpent.

And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her Seed;
He shall bruise your head,
And you shall bruise His heel.”
I ask you were the Patriarchs saved and reconciled to God before the cross? If they were there was no need to send Jesus. So now if not, their works and adhering to the law was insufficient. Was not Abram justified by faith before the Law was spoken or carried out in circumcision. First came the promise then came the works in the flesh, circumcision. I also want to point out that this promise was for all the earth not just the Jews. "And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”

Gen 12:1 Now the LORD had said to Abram:

  “Get out of your country,
  From your family
  And from your father’s house,
  To a land that I will show you.

2 I will make you a great nation;
I will bless you
And make your name great;
And you shall be a blessing.

3 I will bless those who bless you,
And I will curse him who curses you;
And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”

Again which came first, Moses or the Law? So if in Jesus the Patriarchs and Prophets are justified and brought before the LORD in Him Jesus. How will we boast and become justified by our works? Works pleasing and full of power are after the fact of the life that is in us, just as it was for Abram and Moses. Did not the people first HEAR John and then were baptized. How can any man not first hear the word of God before doing anything good he asks?

39 Then one of the criminals who were hanged blasphemed Him, saying, “If You are the Christ, save Yourself and us.”
40 But the other, answering, rebuked him, saying, “Do you not even fear God, seeing you are under the same condemnation? 41 And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this Man has done nothing wrong.” 42 Then he said to Jesus, “Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom.”
43 And Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.”

What good would it have done the man that blasphemed Him to be baptized? Or any man that first is not seeking and receptive of Jesus. Before ever hearing of Jesus what work could you credit in His name. Phillip and the Ethiopian which came first? The Spirit told Phillip to go near, the man was reading seeking, the Spirit was already at work in him. He them heard the truth, and was baptized. For the eyes of the LORD run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to show Himself strong on behalf of those whose heart is loyal to Him. 2 Chronicles 16

Romans 10:17
17 So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

 

[laverita]

You need to keep reading on to Eph 2:10. Are you saying that baptism is just symbolic? It seems as if you are down playing the laying on of hands. Are you?

Yes I am.

Numbers 11:16

16 So the LORD said to Moses: “Gather to Me seventy men of the elders of Israel, whom you know to be the elders of the people and officers over them; bring them to the tabernacle of meeting, that they may stand there with you. 17 Then I will come down and talk with you there. I will take of the Spirit that is upon you and will put the same upon them; and they shall bear the burden of the people with you, that you may not bear it yourself alone. 18 Then you shall say to the people, ‘Consecrate yourselves for tomorrow, and you shall eat meat; for you have wept in the hearing of the LORD, saying, “Who will give us meat to eat? For it was well with us in Egypt.” Therefore the LORD will give you meat, and you shall eat. 19 You shall eat, not one day, nor two days, nor five days, nor ten days, nor twenty days, 20 but for a whole month, until it comes out of your nostrils and becomes loathsome to you, because you have despised the LORD who is among you, and have wept before Him, saying, “Why did we ever come up out of Egypt?”’”
21 And Moses said, “The people whom I am among are six hundred thousand men on foot; yet You have said, ‘I will give them meat, that they may eat for a whole month.’ 22 Shall flocks and herds be slaughtered for them, to provide enough for them? Or shall all the fish of the sea be gathered together for them, to provide enough for them?”
23 And the LORD said to Moses, “Has the LORD’s arm been shortened? Now you shall see whether what I say will happen to you or not.”
24 So Moses went out and told the people the words of the LORD, and he gathered the seventy men of the elders of the people and placed them around the tabernacle. 25 Then the LORD came down in the cloud, and spoke to him, and took of the Spirit that was upon him, and placed the same upon the seventy elders; and it happened, when the Spirit rested upon them, that they prophesied, although they never did so again.
26 But two men had remained in the camp: the name of one was Eldad, and the name of the other Medad. And the Spirit rested upon them. Now they were among those listed, but who had not gone out to the tabernacle; yet they prophesied in the camp. 27 And a young man ran and told Moses, and said, “Eldad and Medad are prophesying in the camp.”
28 So Joshua the son of Nun, Moses’ assistant, one of his choice men, answered and said, “Moses my lord, forbid them!”
29 Then Moses said to him, “Are you zealous for my sake? Oh, that all the LORD’s people were prophets and that the LORD would put His Spirit upon them!” 30 And Moses returned to the camp, he and the elders of Israel.

Moses was not fully in charge of the pouring out of the Spirit. Nor did he deny the Spirit that they received apart from the instructions the LORD had given to “bring them to the tabernacle of meeting, that they may stand there with you”.

Do you now think that the Spirit can only be transfered by the laying of hands? When Moses did not deny the Spirit that fell outside the Tabernacle.

John 3:7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
9 Nicodemus answered and said to Him, “How can these things be?”
10 Jesus answered and said to him, “Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things?

You are a member of the church, and do not know these things?
Can the Spirit be passed by the laying of hands? Yes, Is it confined to this method alone? No.

 

[broski234]

Yes I am.

Numbers 11:16

Moses was not fully in charge of the pouring out of the Spirit. Nor did he deny the Spirit that they received apart from the instructions the LORD had given to “bring them to the tabernacle of meeting, that they may stand there with you”.

Do you now think that the Spirit can only be transfered by the laying of hands? When Moses did not deny the Spirit that fell outside the Tabernacle.

You are a member of the church, and do not know these things?
Can the Spirit be passed by the laying of hands? Yes, Is it confined to this method alone? No.

I agree that its not confined to this method alone. In fact, I never said those words. So please do not put words into my mouth. I never said that the spirit is transferred by the only laying on of hands. So drop the straw man argument Leverita