The Good Thief

[MarcoPolo]

Saying God provided the baptism says nothing more than you believe it is necessary, you would rather he receive a pass on baptism than the fullness of the promise, because it supports your dogma. end of discussion.

It will be the end of discussion, and I can hardly follow your sentences the way they are structured, but if you really believed that any exception destroyed the rule, then you would follow your own advice and fight to get rid of the New Testament, which the good thief neither had, nor needed to be saved. Will you take this position to validate your claim that the exception destroys the rule?

 

[MarcoPolo]

This is such a simple issue, I find all of this discussion amazing. The Good Thief was saved under th old dispensation. Water Baptism is ABSOLUTELY necassary (John 3:5), but it did not become the law until after the Ressurection (when the commission was given). This is Christianity 101, or should be. On faith vs. works, the Bible tells us that faith without works is useless. Our Lord tells us that if we love Him, we will keep his commandments and also that we are to be judged by our fruits. Yes grace is required, a free gift of God, but are obligated to respond to it in such a way that good works will result. Again not that hard, or shouldn’t be. But portestant notions are very confusing.

Catholics believe far more than anyone that our works apart from Christ are of no avail, which is why we baptize infants.

 

[mulligan59]

Yes, natural good works alone are a “counterfiet” of virtue. I think Leo XIIIth said this. But the protestant notion of “faith alone”, which seems to be defended in many of these posts is also not true and unscriptural.

Anyway, my basic point concerning the necessity of baptism for us, but not for people who lived under the old law (which is no longer valid), and the good thief was obviously saved under the old law, is a simple one. It doesn’t require all of this philosophizing and speculation.

 

[mulligan59]

PS…We baptize infants lest they die without it. Period.

 

[broski234]

This is such a simple issue, I find all of this discussion amazing. The Good Thief was saved under th old dispensation. Water Baptism is ABSOLUTELY necassary (John 3:5), but it did not become the law until after the Ressurection (when the commission was given). This is Christianity 101, or should be. On faith vs. works, the Bible tells us that faith without works is useless. Our Lord tells us that if we love Him, we will keep his commandments and also that we are to be judged by our fruits. Yes grace is required, a free gift of God, but are obligated to respond to it in such a way that good works will result. Again not that hard, or shouldn’t be. But portestant notions are very confusing.

Thank you! That is what I said from the beginning.

 

[AFISHN]

Average Joe is very observant:Mel Gibson did have" the thief on Jesus’ right, rather than on his left. Scripture has the redeemed thief on the Right!

If I understand, scripture places all righteous to the right…

Jesus, sit on the right of God,
Goats to the left, sheep to the right, at judgement.
Redeemed thief, to Jesus’s Right".

The plot thickens my brothers sisters…if you read or look at any of the Judaic descriptions—or even sketches of the Holy of Holies…notice there are two small figures(look to be angels)to the left and to the right of the H oH .

–One figure is smiling and peaceful looking ; the other figure has a horrific look!

Perhaps a little prefiguration of what would take place at The Crucifixiaton with the good thief and bad thief…
Tom

 

[laverita]

The difference I believe is in the born again “saved” concept. The verses that I posted are referring to this, 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.

It does say saved, its complete not progressive or in the process.

Galatians 3: 2 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the Law – or by believing what you heard? 3 Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?

Above we see that Spirit is used instead of “saved”, this verse also makes the distinction that it is free of observance of the law. Jesus is the fullness and completeness of the old convent. He is also the fullness and completeness of the new, doing away completely with the law. He did not fulfill the law to bring a new law. He fulfilled it to bring salvation by grace faith alone. The evidence and result of this free gift is the Spirit a seal. The guarantee. Jeremiah 31 I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God

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.

(CentralFLJames) laverita, I hate to tell you this but there is no such concept as “saved”. No one is saved until God judges them saved. To presume one is saved is to presume that one can judge in God’s place and can speak for God.

Well James you need to get with MarcoPolo he believes that because I have salvation, born again, saved out side the need of baptism. I should just get rid of the NT. You both IMO forget that the NT letters are written largely to people that have already been saved, received the Spirit, they were born again. Jeremiah 31 is also quoted in Hebrews 10:16.

33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”

It appears to me that you Catholics think that by observing the works perform by saved Christians, or the work of the Spirit is evidence of necessity. They, the writers of the letters have received this new birth, the “born again” Jesus spoke of to Nicodemus. The Father knows your heart, He sees it as you hear the word, the testimony of Jesus. If He finds your heart true, He seals you with the Holy Spirit.
Galatians 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.

Sadly I find the Catholic followers rarely speaking of this. Instead you make a list of conditions that must be met. Faith with out works is useless, yes it is. But works is not the method we received the Holy Spirit. If you dont have the Holy Spirit, works will not bring salvation in the rebirth of the Holy Spirit. It is the condition of the heart that the LORD is watching. The proper understanding of His son, the opening of your spiritual eyes. Faith comes by hearing, hearing by the word of God.

 

[laverita]

This is such a simple issue, I find all of this discussion amazing. The Good Thief was saved under th old dispensation. Water Baptism is ABSOLUTELY necassary (John 3:5), but it did not become the law until after the Ressurection (when the commission was given). This is Christianity 101, or should be. On faith vs. works, the Bible tells us that faith without works is useless. Our Lord tells us that if we love Him, we will keep his commandments and also that we are to be judged by our fruits. Yes grace is required, a free gift of God, but are obligated to respond to it in such a way that good works will result. Again not that hard, or shouldn’t be. But portestant notions are very confusing.

You seem to have a different perspective than Augustine on the Good Thief.
And as in the thief the gracious goodness of the Almighty supplied what had been wanting in the sacrament of baptism,

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4855544&postcount=32

 

[laverita]

Yes, natural good works alone are a “counterfiet” of virtue. I think Leo XIIIth said this. But the protestant notion of “faith alone”, which seems to be defended in many of these posts is also not true and unscriptural.

Anyway, my basic point concerning the necessity of baptism for us, but not for people who lived under the old law (which is no longer valid), and the good thief was obviously saved under the old law, is a simple one. It doesn’t require all of this philosophizing and speculation.

Natural works are the work of the flesh, the good works are done by the flesh reborn with the Holy Spirit.

By the way no one was saved under the old law, he was save because of Jesus. The patriarchs were also saved this way. If anyone was saved under the old Covent Jesus would have never needed come.

 

[mulligan59]

Well I hate to contradict a Doctor of the Church, and honestly I’m not sure what is different about my understanding. Perhaps you’ll tell me. But Augustine could have been in error, The Council of Trent could not have been. Trent stated that John 3:5 is to be understood as written, without any “deeper understanding”. You have to be Baptized. You have to avail yourself (if possible) of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. You have to have your sins forgiven (if commited after Baptism) by a priest. Why would the Lord have bothered to breath on the apostles and tell them that they had the power to forgive men’s sins OR to hold them bound? Do you suppose the Lord was only kidding?

It really isn’t that hard to follow or to live. But one must trust Christ and take Him at His word. He clearly established a Church with certian protocols. He clearly gave the Apostles supernatural powers which ARE NOT given to all men. The Christain world accepted these precepts universally until Luther got angry a dn married his Nun, and Henry got his Divorce.

Saint Paul, whom protestants most like to quote (or misquote) on faith vs. works constantly feared that he would fall! He said work out salvation in fear and trembling. How does this square with the notion of being saved once and forever?

 

[laverita]

It will be the end of discussion, and I can hardly follow your sentences the way they are structured, but if you really believed that any exception destroyed the rule, then you would follow your own advice and fight to get rid of the New Testament, which the good thief neither had, nor needed to be saved. Will you take this position to validate your claim that the exception destroys the rule?

He needed Jesus who is the new Covent complete and nothing more is needed.

Yes the exception of baptisum, that Augustine stated, and you provided in this post forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4855544&postcount=32
says it all. The rule or law of baptism that the Catholic Church holds Augustine made an exception to threw Jesus. The scripture says that Jesus is the exception to all rules, not just baptism. He is the complete new and old testaments.

A rule or law can only apply if no exceptions are found. Is there an exception to the 10 commandments? Yes, its Jesus. Do we need to follow the 10 laws yes. Is there an exception to the law of gravity, all matter, elements are affected and subjective to gravity that is a law. This law is overturned if science finds an exception. So yes “the exception destroys the rule”. We are deserving of death by the law, is there an exception yes, Jesus. Jesus is the exception to the law of death. Not baptism or the Eucharist they are symbolic of the Spirit and Jesus. They are not the essence.

 

[broski234]

The difference I believe is in the born again “saved” concept. The verses that I posted are referring to this, 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.

We are all familiar with these two verses. Why do you stop there? Again, I ask you to read v. 10. Catholics agree 100% with the fact that our works do not merit our justification…that our works do not save us. Again, I point to infant baptism as evidence of this belief. Therefore, you are actually arguing against something that is not Catholic teaching. Official Catholic teaching explicitly excludes any works prior to our justification as being “causative agents” in our salvation.Now, I want to look at some more “faith and works” passages, but, before I do, I want to complete the explanation of the Catholic belief on salvation that I started above. Catholics believe that nothing that comes before the “point of salvation”…whether faith or works…merits salvation for us. We believe that we are saved by God’s free gift of His grace that comes to us through Baptism…the washing of regeneration by the Holy Spirit. Obviously faith is critical to our receiving Baptism…our own personal faith if we are baptized as adults, the faith of our parents if we are baptized as infants. But, our faith itself does not save us, it is God’s grace that saves us. Once, however, we become members of the Body of Christ, through Baptism, then we have a job to do. The process of salvation does not end there. As Paul says in some letters, “We were saved,” and in other letters, “[We] are being saved,” and in still other letters, “We will be saved.” Past, present, and future…salvation is a process.

We must become properly functioning members of the Body (Eph 4:15-16). We must produce fruit. Scripture tells us that any tree that does not produce fruit will be cut down at the roots and tossed in the fire to be burned. Just as if any cell in the human body will ultimately be rejected by the body if it doesn’t do what it’s designed to do, so, too, any cell in the Body of Christ will ultimately be rejected if it doesn’t do what it’s designed to do. And, we are designed to produce fruit. We are designed to walk in the works that God has prepared for us beforehand, that we should walk in them (Eph 2:10). We are designed to abide in Christ (John 6:56).

 

[laverita]

Romans 14
The Weak and the Strong

1Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2One man’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

5One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.

9For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. 10You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. 11It is written:
" ‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord,
‘every knee will bow before me;
every tongue will confess to God.’ "[a] 12So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.

13Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother’s way. 14As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food** is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. 15If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. 16Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. 17For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.

There is really no need for me to say more. I have shared my message of salvation. I have spoken in the strength and wisdom not of myself but in the power of the Spirit.**

 

[Nino]

first there is no such a thing as a good thief unless we are talking about being caught in a dictatorship! then if one takes an extra slice of stale bread from a fellow prisoner that is stealing and a sin…but to take some of that same stale bread from the kitchen of the dictators…thats just survival…so I figure this so called good thief was just that…a survivor who saw a good thing when it presented itself…when he saw how Jesus behaved even after being found ‘guilty’ by a cowardly judge…he said wow…this guy I can believe in…the religious establishment is a joke and the roman soldiers just patsies! To recognize majesty in Jesus was a monumental feat…imagine how Jesus looked…he had been starved,beaten to within an inch of his life…stabbed,spit upon,a crown of thorns pressed onto his head,a dirty sponge of water pressed to his mouth…yet He had a majesty about Him that so impressed this 'good’thief! If only we could be so brave…at abortion clinics,and movie houses that show rotten anti-family films…too many of us are like the silent cowardly bad thief…may we pick up the sword of St.Michael and win back at least part of this world for Jesus…

 

[skeyes]

You are right, there is no need for you to say more. You believe that you have enlightened us. We don’t need your enlightenment. We have Jesus, His Church and His Sacraments. We have however given you the reason for our hope and I pray that you will meditate upon some of the things you have read on this thread and come to understand what folks have been trying to share with you. We have been saved, we are being saved and we hope to be saved. That is it. In a nutshell. God bless you in all your pursuits.
In His service,
Stan

 

[mulligan59]

Laverita,

I saw the Augustine quote in the link you provided. Thank you, I was new to the thread.

However Augustine is arguing for infant Baptism (providing the sacrament for those who cannot desire it). I agree one can infer that he assumed the thief to have been in need of Baptism. He used a poor example, because the thief simply wasn’t (in need of baptism) and this is obvious. Was Moses Baptized?

 

[MarcoPolo]

Laverita,

I saw the Augustine quote in the link you provided. Thank you, I was new to the thread.

However Augustine is arguing for infant Baptism (providing the sacrament for those who cannot desire it). I agree one can infer that he assumed the thief to have been in need of Baptism. He used a poor example, because the thief simply wasn’t (in need of baptism) and this is obvious. Was Moses Baptized?

Whether or not Augustine believed the thief needed baptism or whether the thief was under the old covenant still refutes Laverita’s point. He/she argued that since the thief was saved “without” it, it isn’t necessary for anyone (although he/she was not able to articulate why this is the rule). Taking that logic the rest of the way, everything the Apostles did following that event, everything Christ said and did during His resurrection is unimportant because you can always say, “Hey, the thief was saved without it, so it’s therefore unnecessary.” I challenged Laverita to argue that we do not then need the New Testament (because the thief was saved without it, so let’s argue that it’s unnecessary), but I do not see that he was willing to validate his own claim.

 

[mulligan59]

I agree. Well said. I find it stunning, literally stunning, and not to be somehow mean or elitist; but I am stunned by Protestants who can roll out quote after quote from scripture, decide when Jesus is speaking metaphorically, and then tell us that Catholicism contradicts scripture. In the meantime they ignore the quite clear meaning of Christ’s own words on the Eucharist, on the power to forgive sins, on the primacy of Peter and on the need to hear the Church. It’s actually mindboggling. The fog must be thick indeed.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I agree. Well said. I find it stunning, literally stunning, and not to be somehow mean or elitist; but I am stunned by Protestants who can roll out quote after quote from scripture, decide when Jesus is speaking metaphorically, and then tell us that Catholicism contradicts scripture. In the meantime they ignore the quite clear meaning of Christ’s own words on the Eucharist, on the power to forgive sins, on the primacy of Peter and on the need to hear the Church. It’s actually mindboggling. The fog must be thick indeed.

Or the command then becomes “Go forth and baptize all nations in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, if you feel like it…”

 

[laverita]

, so let’s argue that it’s unnecessary), but I do not see that he was willing to validate his own claim.

I did right here

He needed Jesus who is the new Covent complete and nothing more is needed.

A rule or law can only apply if no exceptions are found. Is there an exception to the 10 commandments? Yes, its Jesus. Do we need to follow the 10 laws yes. Is there an exception to the law of gravity, all matter, elements are affected and subjective to gravity that is a law. This law is overturned if science finds an exception. So yes “the exception destroys the rule”. We are deserving of death by the law, is there an exception yes, Jesus. Jesus is the exception to the law of death. Not baptism or the Eucharist they are symbolic of the Spirit and Jesus. They are not the essence.