The good thief

[sulliaa8]

My wife was looking at John Martignoni’s website yesterday and came across this response to faith and works regarding the good thief.
Here is the link for more clarification biblechristiansociety.com/apologetics/two_minute#31.
So the response was good but it really seemed to me that the explanation went a little far to fit the Catholic belief. In essence he said, that by raising himself up enough to speak in defense of Jesus, despite great pain, he had in fact accomplished a work. So, he showed his faith, accomplished a work and was babtised by desire. My confusion comes from my understanding of justification, which I admit I am still trying to fully comprehend. So, I would have thought that by essentially repenting, believing and being baptised (even by desire) he would be justified when death came, presumable very soon after. As another example I have heard, if I, through the HS come to have a profound and true conversion of body and soul to our Lord and I am baptised and repent, but get hit by a bus immediatly, I am still justified am I not. I understand that the good thief and I may spend eternity in purgatory but essentially we are justified, right? Now if the good thief had somehow survived his crucifixtion or I was not hit by a bus, gook works would be the outflow of my faith and lead to greater sanctification and would be judged when we eventually died and stood before the Lord for our judgement.
Anyway, its not that I think John is wrong of course, only that the explanation is not really neccessary to fit Catholic teaching. I appreciate any responses to help clarify this for me.

Fratus Tuus in Christo

 

[po18guy]

Dismas, as he is known, repented of his sins on the cross. Repentance is the first step in salvation. He rebuked his fellow criminal for his blasphemous utterances. He recognized Jesus as a King, even though neither the Pharisees nor Pontius Pilate did. He asked the King for mercy, and he knew that Jesus’ Kingdom was not of this world. He would have submitted to baptism had the opportunity been there. Thus, he demonstrated the baptism of desire.

 

[snarflemike]

I agree that we don’t need to force the good thief through the ordinary mold of good works, just as we don’t need to force any deathbed converts. If you don’t have time to live out your faith then you can’t live out your faith. But that doesn’t give the rest of us an “out”. Of course, if we have living faith we won’t want an “out” in the first place.

(Just to avoid any confusion, I’m not suggesting that you are looking for an “out”)

 

[po18guy]

Keep in mind that John has to respond to a very wide variety of both secular as well as Christian beliefs - from total atheists, to non-baptismal faith alone Christians, to those who see no salvation outside of water baptism, to those (i.e. International Church of Christ) who believe that baptism is ineffective unless you first: believe and secondly: fully understand baptisms effects before being baptized. He is not teaching RCIA, but Christian apologetics even to atheists and agnostics.

 

[sulliaa8]

I agree that we don’t need to force the good thief through the ordinary mold of good works, just as we don’t need to force any deathbed converts. If you don’t have time to live out your faith then you can’t live out your faith. But that doesn’t give the rest of us an “out”. Of course, if we have living faith we won’t want an “out” in the first place.

(Just to avoid any confusion, I’m not suggesting that you are looking for an “out”)

Good point, I never thought of it with a deathbed convert, but in principle it would be the same. Thank you.

Keep in mind that John has to respond to a very wide variety of both secular as well as Christian beliefs - from total atheists, to non-baptismal faith alone Christians, to those who see no salvation outside of water baptism, to those (i.e. International Church of Christ) who believe that baptism is ineffective unless you first: believe and secondly: fully understand baptisms effects before being baptized. He is not teaching RCIA, but Christian apologetics even to atheists and agnostics.

I consider myself a part of his audience and I try to catch his show when I can so I know the types of callers he can get. Maybe I’ll try to email him for his take, but I think regardless of the reader/ listener the explanation went a little to far too the end of the branch so to speak. It has merit but OMHO is not neccessary and anyone who would point to that one verse as evidence of sola fide would “miss the forest for the trees”, or their pride has blinded them to the truth.

Thanks for your replies!

Fratus Tuus in Christo

 

[Ben_F]

I go through the whole Good thief scenario, every time I have to go to confession. Going to confession is work… hard work. Pennance, when done correctly, is very painful. Thinking of what Christ had to endure due to my sins, is almost unbearable. Guilt can kill. We can neither measure the good thief´s sorrow or suffering, while on the cross with Jesus nor can we measure the sorrow or suffering of others in their sins. We certainly can´t measure Jesus´ mercy and compassion, now or, at that time. We are so blessed with the Holy Spirit. How many times have we said why go to confession? That pull against God´s divine grace. Then for some reason we go. The Holy Spirit conquers. God´s will, will be done period. Yes the good thief was fully justified. Yes, John fully describes what Catholics ought to believe. Yes, we are fully blessed, by being members of the One True Faith. God bless:thumbsup:

 

[pablope]

My wife was looking at John Martignoni’s website yesterday and came across this response to faith and works regarding the good thief.
Here is the link for more clarification biblechristiansociety.com/apologetics/two_minute#31.
So the response was good but it really seemed to me that the explanation went a little far to fit the Catholic belief. In essence he said, that by raising himself up enough to speak in defense of Jesus, despite great pain, he had in fact accomplished a work. So, he showed his faith, accomplished a work and was babtised by desire. My confusion comes from my understanding of justification, which I admit I am still trying to fully comprehend. So, I would have thought that by essentially repenting, believing and being baptised (even by desire) he would be justified when death came, presumable very soon after. As another example I have heard, if I, through the HS come to have a profound and true conversion of body and soul to our Lord and I am baptised and repent, but get hit by a bus immediatly, I am still justified am I not. I understand that the good thief and I may spend eternity in purgatory but essentially we are justified, right? Now if the good thief had somehow survived his crucifixtion or I was not hit by a bus, gook works would be the outflow of my faith and lead to greater sanctification and would be judged when we eventually died and stood before the Lord for our judgement.
Anyway, its not that I think John is wrong of course, only that the explanation is not really neccessary to fit Catholic teaching. I appreciate any responses to help clarify this for me.

Fratus Tuus in Christo

The good thief suffered…but suffered meritorously… saints.sqpn.com/catechism-on-suffering-by-saint-john-vianney/
Whether we will or not, we must suffer. There are some who suffer like the good thief, and others like the bad thief. They both suffered equally. But one knew how to make his sufferings meritorious, he accepted them in the spirit of reparation, and turning towards Jesus crucified, he received from His mouth these beautiful words: “This day thou shalt be with Me in Paradise. ” The other, on the contrary, cried out, uttered imprecations and blasphemies, and expired in the most frightful despair. There are two ways of suffering — to suffer with love, and to suffer without love.

 

[fhansen]

My wife was looking at John Martignoni’s website yesterday and came across this response to faith and works regarding the good thief.
Here is the link for more clarification biblechristiansociety.com/apologetics/two_minute#31.
So the response was good but it really seemed to me that the explanation went a little far to fit the Catholic belief. In essence he said, that by raising himself up enough to speak in defense of Jesus, despite great pain, he had in fact accomplished a work. So, he showed his faith, accomplished a work and was babtised by desire. My confusion comes from my understanding of justification, which I admit I am still trying to fully comprehend. So, I would have thought that by essentially repenting, believing and being baptised (even by desire) he would be justified when death came, presumable very soon after. As another example I have heard, if I, through the HS come to have a profound and true conversion of body and soul to our Lord and I am baptised and repent, but get hit by a bus immediatly, I am still justified am I not. I understand that the good thief and I may spend eternity in purgatory but essentially we are justified, right? Now if the good thief had somehow survived his crucifixtion or I was not hit by a bus, gook works would be the outflow of my faith and lead to greater sanctification and would be judged when we eventually died and stood before the Lord for our judgement.
Anyway, its not that I think John is wrong of course, only that the explanation is not really neccessary to fit Catholic teaching. I appreciate any responses to help clarify this for me.

Fratus Tuus in Christo

We’re simply expected to do the best we can with what we’re given (grace). Luke 12:48 applies here as well as the Parable of the Talents. If the good thief had had more time and opportunity to do more than he could on the cross, then more would’ve been demanded.

 

[snarflemike]

We’re simply expected to do the best we can with what we’re given (grace). Luke 12:48 applies here as well as the Parable of the Talents. If the good thief had had more time and opportunity to do more than he could on the cross, then more would’ve been demanded.

Agree. I would just change (grace) to (grace and circumstances)…

 

[sulliaa8]

good thief suffered…but suffered meritorously… saints.sqpn.com/catechism-on-suffering-by-saint-john-vianney/

Amazing read, thank you for the link.

 

[John_Martignoni]

My wife was looking at John Martignoni’s website yesterday and came across this response to faith and works regarding the good thief.
Here is the link for more clarification biblechristiansociety.com/apologetics/two_minute#31.
So the response was good but it really seemed to me that the explanation went a little far to fit the Catholic belief. In essence he said, that by raising himself up enough to speak in defense of Jesus, despite great pain, he had in fact accomplished a work. So, he showed his faith, accomplished a work and was babtised by desire…Anyway, its not that I think John is wrong of course, only that the explanation is not really neccessary to fit Catholic teaching. I appreciate any responses to help clarify this for me.

Fratus Tuus in Christo

Actually, if you read that answer again, I think the problem is not that the “explanation went a little far,” as much as it is that you read much more into it than was actually there. For example, you talk about the thief being baptized by desire, yet there was nothing in the explanation about Baptism of Desire. There is no claim made in that explanation that the thief was baptized by desire. There is also nothing said about justification nor about Catholic teaching on salvation.

The explanation was not meant as an explication of Catholicism, it was simply a negation of one particular Protestant argument. The Protestant argument is that the Good Thief did no works and was not baptized, yet was saved, so neither works nor Baptism are necessary for salvation. The response in the “2-Minute Apologetics” was simply that that argument holds no merit whatsoever, as 1) the Good Thief, by speaking out in defense of Christ, did indeed do a good work; and, 2) that the requirement of Baptism for salvation had not yet been instituted. Which means the Protestant argument fails in both parts. That’s it, nothing more. Nothing in that explanation that tries to “fit Catholic teaching” to the situation.

If you want something about justification and the process of salvation, go to the “Debates” page at www.biblechristiansociety.com and read the Justification debate.

 

[JonNC]

Actually, if you read that answer again, I think the problem is not that the “explanation went a little far,” as much as it is that you read much more into it than was actually there. For example, you talk about the thief being baptized by desire, yet there was nothing in the explanation about Baptism of Desire. There is no claim made in that explanation that the thief was baptized by desire. There is also nothing said about justification nor about Catholic teaching on salvation.

The explanation was not meant as an explication of Catholicism, it was simply a negation of one particular Protestant argument. The Protestant argument is that the Good Thief did no works and was not baptized, yet was saved, so neither works nor Baptism are necessary for salvation. The response in the “2-Minute Apologetics” was simply that that argument holds no merit whatsoever, as 1)** the Good Thief, by speaking out in defense of Christ, did indeed do a good work;** and, 2) that the requirement of Baptism for salvation had not yet been instituted. Which means the Protestant argument fails in both parts. That’s it, nothing more. Nothing in that explanation that tries to “fit Catholic teaching” to the situation.

If you want something about justification and the process of salvation, go to the “Debates” page at www.biblechristiansociety.com and read the Justification debate.

I would agree with you concerning Baptism, I would also say that it was not his defense of Christ that saved him, but grace through faith. His defense was a good fruit of his faith.
Would you agree?

Jon

 

[John_Martignoni]

I would agree with you concerning Baptism, I would also say that it was not his defense of Christ that saved him, but grace through faith. His defense was a good fruit of his faith.
Would you agree?

Jon

1. You would agree with me on Baptism - great! So you agree with me that the Protestant argument that tries to use the example of the Good Thief to prove Baptism is not required for salvation, is an argument without merit, since the New Testament requirement of Baptism for entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven (John 3:3-5) had not yet been instituted at the time of the Crucifixion. Thank you for being so agreeable.
2. “You” would say “that it was not his defense of Christ that saved him?” Are “you” the one who gets to decide such things? I agree that it is grace that saves, and I also agree that faith is necessary for salvation, and I would also agree that his defense of Christ is a good fruit growing out of his faith. However, you seem to be saying that his defense of Christ had nothing at all to do with his salvation? Do you contend, then, that the Good Thief would have still received Christ’s promise of Paradise even if he had not spoken up on His behalf?

 

[JonNC]

=John Martignoni;9292498]1) You would agree with me on Baptism - great! So you agree with me that the Protestant argument that tries to use the example of the Good Thief to prove Baptism is not required for salvation, is an argument without merit, since the New Testament requirement of Baptism for entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven (John 3:3-5) had not yet been instituted at the time of the Crucifixion. Thank you for being so agreeable.

Agreed. I would have thought that you would know that this is not an argument Lutherans would use. Essentially, we agree, John, on Baptism.

1. “You” would say “that it was not his defense of Christ that saved him?” Are “you” the one who gets to decide such things?

Of course not. And I didn’t claim to. My purpose of the question was not confrontational, but trying to see what your thoughts were, and whether there was a level on convergence between us.

I agree that it is grace that saves, and I also agree that faith is necessary for salvation, and I would also agree that his defense of Christ is a good fruit growing out of his faith. However, you seem to be saying that his defense of Christ had nothing at all to do with his salvation? Do you contend, then, that the Good Thief would have still received Christ’s promise of Paradise even if he had not spoken up on His behalf?

Didn’t say that his defense had nothing to do with his salvation. It would have nothing to do with it were it not for grace through faith.
Yes, I think it is possible had he not spoken up, though certainly he is blessed by doing so.

Jon

 

[itullian]

Dismas, as he is known, repented of his sins on the cross. Repentance is the first step in salvation. He rebuked his fellow criminal for his blasphemous utterances. He recognized Jesus as a King, even though neither the Pharisees nor Pontius Pilate did. He asked the King for mercy, and he knew that Jesus’ Kingdom was not of this world. He would have submitted to baptism had the opportunity been there. Thus, he demonstrated the baptism of desire.

this,

plus…give the guy a break for God’s sake. HE’S HANGING ON A CROSS. Christ could see he was genuine so he saved him. no need to quibble. HE did it.

 

[PJM]

=sulliaa8;9272565]My wife was looking at John Martignoni’s website yesterday and came across this response to faith and works regarding the good thief.
Here is the link for more clarification ].
So the response was good but it really seemed to me that the explanation went a little far to fit the Catholic belief. In essence he said, that by raising himself up enough to speak in defense of Jesus, despite great pain, he had in fact accomplished a work. So, he showed his faith, accomplished a work and was babtised by desire".

Because baptism has three acceptable forms: of Water and the HS; of Blood [Maytardom for Christ], and of Desire for those for whom the Norms are NOT POSSIBLE but have thenecessary Faith and Hope. The Good Theif was PROMISED BY GOD personally that his retentance and Desire WERE sufficient. Are to to question God?

My confusion comes from my understanding of justification, which I admit I am still trying to fully comprehend. So, I would have thought that by essentially repenting, believing and being baptised (even by desire) he would be justified when death came,
Fratus Tuus in Christo

Purgatory is a temporary place for purfication. NEVER permnant.

Any understanding of how salvation takes place and what is necessary for it that does not agree with what the CC [and therefore God] teach is wrong.

Salvation is a lifelong PROCESS that requires many Crosses and many steps.

But be assured only “believing” in Christ while the essentail FIRST step, is just that. ONLY the first necessary step. Baptism, keeping ALL of the Commandments [which are catagoroes of sin; not the complete list]; Obeying those who God has appointed in His stead [the RCC], not unlike Abraham, Moses, Daivid, the Prophets ect, Accepting and advantaging the Sacraments especially Forgiveness of Sins [God’s WAY.John 20:19-23;] and the Real Presence: Mt. 25; Mk.14; Lk.22, John 6 and 1st. Cor.11.

IF you’d like further info send me a Private Message.

God Bless and THANKS for your POST!
pat/PJM

 

[sulliaa8]

Actually, if you read that answer again, I think the problem is not that the “explanation went a little far,” as much as it is that you read much more into it than was actually there. For example, you talk about the thief being baptized by desire, yet there was nothing in the explanation about Baptism of Desire. There is no claim made in that explanation that the thief was baptized by desire. There is also nothing said about justification nor about Catholic teaching on salvation.

The explanation was not meant as an explication of Catholicism, it was simply a negation of one particular Protestant argument. The Protestant argument is that the Good Thief did no works and was not baptized, yet was saved, so neither works nor Baptism are necessary for salvation. The response in the “2-Minute Apologetics” was simply that that argument holds no merit whatsoever, as 1) the Good Thief, by speaking out in defense of Christ, did indeed do a good work; and, 2) that the requirement of Baptism for salvation had not yet been instituted. Which means the Protestant argument fails in both parts. That’s it, nothing more. Nothing in that explanation that tries to “fit Catholic teaching” to the situation.

If you want something about justification and the process of salvation, go to the “Debates” page at www.biblechristiansociety.com and read the Justification debate.

Thank you for replying John, I was going to ask the question on your website but I saw you were not taking any apologetics emails at this time. Also, I read your response again and I see that I did miss your point on baptism, my wife and I were speeking about the works aspect and I interjected my view on baptism by desire. So I apologize for my post coming off as your view instead of my own.
As to your second point, the question on your site begins as “Catholics say that faith and works are necessary for salvation and that one has to be baptized in order to be saved…” The point of the question is a challenge to Catholic teaching on Faith, works, and salvation. So, even though you may be nullinfying a Protestant argument, the motive for doing so on an apologetics website is to also demonstrate why the Catholic teaching does not fail on this point. I can see your point regarding baptism but I respectfully stand by my view that whether or not his speaking in defense of the Savior should be considered a work doesn’t matter and is not neccessary to “fit Catholic teaching”.

this,

plus…give the guy a break for God’s sake. HE’S HANGING ON A CROSS. Christ could see he was genuine so he saved him. no need to quibble. HE did it.

Sometime the simplest answer is the best answer!

 

[sulliaa8]

Because baptism has three acceptable forms: of Water and the HS; of Blood [Maytardom for Christ], and of Desire for those for whom the Norms are NOT POSSIBLE but have thenecessary Faith and Hope. The Good Theif was PROMISED BY GOD personally that his retentance and Desire WERE sufficient. Are to to question God?

Purgatory is a temporary place for purfication. NEVER permnant.

Any understanding of how salvation takes place and what is necessary for it that does not agree with what the CC [and therefore God] teach is wrong.

Im with you here, thank you for the explanation on the different forms of baptism, it does help.
Yes, purgatory is temporary I just wanted to stress that the Dismas or myself would not go straight to heaven , and would still have to atone for the temporal effects of the sins during our lives.

IF you’d like further info send me a Private Message.

I will probably take you up on that.

God Bless, and thanks everyone for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[tarboy]

Hi sulliaa8
I think you are right and John is wrong. His explanation perpetuates the belief that works actually purchase salvation, rather than being just an indicator of salvation. Obedience without faith does nothing, but true faith causes obedience.

My wife was looking at John Martignoni’s website yesterday and came across this response to faith and works regarding the good thief.
Here is the link for more clarification biblechristiansociety.com/apologetics/two_minute#31.

Anyway, its not that I think John is wrong of course, only that the explanation is not really neccessary to fit Catholic teaching. I appreciate any responses to help clarify this for me.

Fratus Tuus in Christo

 

[PRmerger]

Hi sulliaa8
I think you are right and John is wrong. His explanation perpetuates the belief that works actually purchase salvation, rather than being just an indicator of salvation. Obedience without faith does nothing, but true faith causes obedience.

How does one have obedience without faith? That is, who does one obey if one doesn’t have faith in this Who?