The thief on the cross beside Jesus

[princz23]

I have often heard it said, to contrast Catholic beliefs, that the thief on the cross beside Jesus did not have to go to church, be baptized or help anyone to be with Jesus in paradise.

I was wondering what, if anything, non-Catholics believe the thief would have been responsible for doing had Jesus said those words to him while he hung on the cross and he was suddenly given immunity and released like Barabbas. Would he have been required anything, or could he have gone back to living his former life and still been “saved” upon his death?

 

[LilyM]

Firstly the thief had what is called a ‘baptism of desire’. When he said ‘Lord, remember me when you enter your kingdom’, he was expressing a belief that Jesus was divine and a desire to follow him. This is why John the Baptist, St Joseph and some martyrs who died for the Christian and Catholic faith without the opportunity of baptism can still be safely said to be saints.

Naturally the thief was unable to do anything by way of receiving baptism by water at that time, or at all before his death, neither could Jesus so baptise him if he had wished it. This is one of the reasons There are, however, some points to be considered:

1. Jesus didn’t baptise anyone while he was alive. Baptism is a symbol of entry into the community of his followers, no need to show this symbolically if Jesus was still bodily alive and you could do it really. This is why he didn’t command the apostles to baptise until just before he left them.
2. Remember John saying ‘I baptise with water, He will baptise with the Holy Spirit?’ And to Jesus he said ‘you should baptise me’. Nevertheless Jesus DID permit John to baptise him to set the example for his followers. So he was mandating baptism by water, but clearly this was only for after he was no longer physically around.

I would say the thief, like the Apostles, wouldn’t have to be baptised with water. Everyone who becomes a believer since the Ascension of Jesus when he commanded baptism by water, would need to be if at all possible.

Interesting question though.

 

[princz23]

Firstly the thief had what is called a ‘baptism of desire’. When he said ‘Lord, remember me when you enter your kingdom’, he was expressing a belief that Jesus was divine and a desire to follow him. This is why John the Baptist, St Joseph and some martyrs who died for the Christian and Catholic faith without the opportunity of baptism can still be safely said to be saints.

LilyM,

I agree with you completely. How can the thief be more forgiven than to have Jesus himself forgive him when he was living 2000 years ago? There is no doubt Jesus had the power to forgive sins.

However, what I want to know is why is this part of scripture used to refute Catholic belief that baptism is more than symbolic, but it is regenerative? Also, why are these scriptures used by non-Catholics to say that salvation does not come from God’s grace working through love, but merely through faith alone?

 

[jonfan]

This is because a lot of Protestant splinter group Chruches throughout the ages have a real disdain for the Catholic Church. To lure people in the they made a “Micro-Wave Jesus”. 30 seconds and you are saved. Everything can be fixed by just saying you accept Jesus. This sounds pretty good doesn’t it? Unfortunately LIfe simply does not work this way.
Having said that though, there a lot of good protestant people out there. They have just been taught what we could deem as wrong. But, as long as whatever splinter group church a protestant goes to teaches one to respect another, there is good with in that communities teachings. Unfortuantely the extreme versions of these splinter group chruches have a great dislike for The Roman Catholic Chruch because of the way we have things set up. Essentially they take the simpilist messages and preach according to the quick fix philosophy doctrine. I almost want to believe things work that way but as Catholics and humans we know they just don’t. This is why we have baptism as a sacrament. It was what Jesus said to do. I’m not going to change the rules on that one. are you?
Hope this helps.

God Bless,
Jon

 

[Studens]

princz23:

I was wondering what, if anything, non-Catholics believe the thief would have been responsible for doing had Jesus said those words to him while he hung on the cross and he was suddenly given immunity and released like Barabbas. Would he have been required anything, or could he have gone back to living his former life and still been “saved” upon his death?

I am not Roman Catholic, or a part of any apostolic tradition that participated in the various ecumenical councils of the early Christian era. But I am also not a Protestant, so I may not be the kind of person you want an answer from. However, I am a non-Catholic Christian (if Catholic means the kind of church I spoke of in the first sentence of this paragraph).

I would say that had the penitent thief been granted clemency and removed from his cross, he would have gone immediately to John (who was standing right there), and asked right away what he needed to do become a disciple of Christ. And I think we all know how John would have responded, especially since he was that very evangelist who wrote the no man could enter the Kingdom of God without baptism of both water and spirit. If the penitent thief had not been so inclined, then Jesus — who knew the hearts of men — would probably not have promised him admission into Paradise.

Another thought has occurred to me, however, since reading this thread. Wasn’t there a storm after Jesus died? Could the rain of that storm have served — for the penitent thief and for him alone — as a special baptism under the hand of God Himself? I’m not trying to suggest anything as silly as “every rainstorm is a baptism,” just that that one rainstorm might have been a baptism for that one man.

 

[LilyM]

Studens:

I am not Roman Catholic, or a part of any apostolic tradition that participated in the various ecumenical councils of the early Christian era. But I am also not a Protestant, so I may not be the kind of person you want an answer from. However, I am a non-Catholic Christian (if Catholic means the kind of church I spoke of in the first sentence of this paragraph).

I would say that had the penitent thief been granted clemency and removed from his cross, he would have gone immediately to John (who was standing right there), and asked right away what he needed to do become a disciple of Christ. And I think we all know how John would have responded, especially since he was that very evangelist who wrote the no man could enter the Kingdom of God without baptism of both water and spirit. If the penitent thief had not been so inclined, then Jesus — who knew the hearts of men — would probably not have promised him admission into Paradise.

Another thought has occurred to me, however, since reading this thread. Wasn’t there a storm after Jesus died? Could the rain of that storm have served — for the penitent thief and for him alone — as a special baptism under the hand of God Himself? I’m not trying to suggest anything as silly as “every rainstorm is a baptism,” just that that one rainstorm might have been a baptism for that one man.

That theory is a little bit out-there. For starters although Jesus had spoken of baptism by water and the spirit, he hadn’t yet finished teaching the apostles, nor had he given them the Trinitarian formula, nor had he commanded them to baptise. Neither, as I said, had Jesus baptised anyone with water himself.

We can’t be sure therefore that John would have known, as we know now, and as he knew decades later when he was writing the Gospel, the significance of baptism with water, or what he would have said.

As I originally said, spirit alone was good enough for the Apostles themselves, since they had Christ himself with them, and it probably would have been good enough for the good thief as well.

 

[Studens]

LilyM:

That theory is a little bit out-there.

That’s fine.

As I understood it, this thread was meant to solicit the beliefs of non-Catholics about the penitent thief. My purpose in posting my response was not to try to convince anyone of the superiority of my own beliefs, but rather just to present them.

I realize now that the phrasing of my original post might make it seem otherwise. I simply misunderstood the Catholic stance on baptism among the early disciples — I figured it was that the early disciples participated in that sacrament in roughly the same way that modern Catholics participate in it (except that almost all the early disciples entered the Church as adults, since they were introduced to it as adults, while most modern Catholics enter the Church as children). It seems I was wrong. I am sorry for the confusion which that has understandably caused.

 

[LilyM]

Studens:

That’s fine.

As I understood it, this thread was meant to solicit the beliefs of non-Catholics about the penitent thief. My purpose in posting my response was not to try to convince anyone of the superiority of my own beliefs, but rather just to present them.

I realize now that the phrasing of my original post might make it seem otherwise. I simply misunderstood the Catholic stance on baptism among the early disciples — I figured it was that the early disciples participated in that sacrament in roughly the same way that modern Catholics participate in it (except that almost all the early disciples entered the Church as adults, since they were introduced to it as adults, while most modern Catholics enter the Church as children). It seems I was wrong. I am sorry for the confusion which that has understandably caused.

We’re not talking about ‘early’ disciples here, we’re talking about ‘during Christ’s own lifetime and called by him personally’ disciples, to be totally clear. And I can’t claim to know the Catholic Church’s official position (or indeed whether it even has any position at all on the matter).

For example, when Christ sent the 72 out it is entirely possible that they baptised with water. It’s possible that Christ DID baptise his apostles. We simply don’t know that this did occur, so there probably isn’t an official Catholic position on it.

Certainly at Pentecost and afterwards, as Acts attests, Peter and the Apostles were baptising and baptism was a requirement. Christ had by then definitely commanded it, and was no longer around to take people into his Church personally.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Studens:

That’s fine.

As I understood it, this thread was meant to solicit the beliefs of non-Catholics about the penitent thief. My purpose in posting my response was not to try to convince anyone of the superiority of my own beliefs, but rather just to present them.

I realize now that the phrasing of my original post might make it seem otherwise. I simply misunderstood the Catholic stance on baptism among the early disciples — I figured it was that the early disciples participated in that sacrament in roughly the same way that modern Catholics participate in it (except that almost all the early disciples entered the Church as adults, since they were introduced to it as adults, while most modern Catholics enter the Church as children). It seems I was wrong. I am sorry for the confusion which that has understandably caused.

All Christians must ultimately be baptized, however there are three valid forms of baptism in the Catholic Church, each producing the same end result. Baptism by desire, baptism by blood and regular water baptism. All three forms of baptism infuse the Holy Spirit into the soul of the person making them a Christian.

 

[LilyM]

Semper Fi:

All Christians must ultimately be baptized, however there are three valid forms of baptism in the Catholic Church, each producing the same end result. Baptism by desire, baptism by blood and regular water baptism. All three forms of baptism infuse the Holy Spirit into the soul of the person making them a Christian.

Thank you Semper Fi - succinctly and elegantly put as always

 

[CactusJack]

Good morning, saints in the making…

Great thread…

Another aspect concerning the thief’s conversion
makes me think of a question asked of Jesus
after the rich young ruler walked away after being
told to sell all his goods and follow the Lord…

The disciples asked Jesus, “Who can be saved?”

Jesus replied… “With man it is impossible, but
with God, all things are possible.”

I believe that God has ordained many things for
the church “to do.” He knows we are men and
need certain things for order and peace. But…
sometimes… God works “outside the box,” as
it were.

God’s mandate to HIs Son and His Son’s Bride,
the church, is one and the same… “I did not come
to condemn the world, but to save it.”

With man, it is impossible. But, with God, all things
are possible."

Blessings, Peace and Grace in Christ,

Cactus Jack

 

[Studens]

Semper Fi:

All Christians must ultimately be baptized, however there are three valid forms of baptism in the Catholic Church, each producing the same end result. Baptism by desire, baptism by blood and regular water baptism. All three forms of baptism infuse the Holy Spirit into the soul of the person making them a Christian.

Thank you very much for explaining this to me. As my username is meant to imply, I am here at CA to learn.

This concept seems to me to be related to 1 John 5:7–8

7 And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one.
8 And there are three that give testimony on earth: the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one.

Do you know whether this scripture is part of the theological reasoning that went into the development of this doctrine?

And an additional question, if I may: what exactly is meant by “baptism by blood”? It sounds to me like the sort of thing that martyrs for the faith who clearly believed in Jesus but were killed before an authorized water baptism was possible for them might have received. Is that right? or am I completely off?

 

[allischalmers]

the answers to the orginal question is: nothing ! The answer of the second question is: If he was truely saved he would have a new life in Christ and would not go back to a sinful life.

forever Baptist
allischalmers

 

[sandusky]

princz23:

However, what I want to know is why is this part of scripture used to refute Catholic belief that baptism is more than symbolic, but it is regenerative?

Hi princz23.

The thief had faith. The requirement for salvation is not baptism, but faith.

princz23:

Also, why are these scriptures used by non-Catholics to say that salvation does not come from God’s grace working through love, but merely through faith alone?

Correct me if I am wrong, but God’s grace working through love requires some work on the part of the sinner, but the thief on the cross had only faith, that is, he had faith without works.

IOW, the thief on the cross was saved by faith alone.

Sandusky

 

[Fiat]

sandusky:

Hi princz23.

The thief had faith. The requirement for salvation is not baptism, but faith.

Correct me if I am wrong, but God’s grace working through love requires some work on the part of the sinner, but the thief on the cross had only faith, that is, he had faith without works.

IOW, the thief on the cross was saved by faith alone.

Sandusky

Sandusky:
I don’t think the gospel accounts give us enough information to know whether the thief was or was not baptized. The issue is whether the thief is under the old covenant or the new covenant. The thief certainly died before Christ even gave the command that the apostles were to go out into the world, baptizing all nations. The thief also died before Jesus fulfilled the New Covenant (i.e., rose from the dead).

It seems to me that because the thief did not die under the New Covenant but under the Old, he would not have (and could not have) received the new covenant baptism because the Holy Spirit had not yet been given to us by Christ.

Fiat

 

[sandusky]

Sandusky::

I don’t think the gospel accounts give us enough information to know whether the thief was or was not baptized. The issue is whether the thief is under the old covenant or the new covenant. The thief certainly died before Christ even gave the command that the apostles were to go out into the world, baptizing all nations. The thief also died before Jesus fulfilled the New Covenant (i.e., rose from the dead).

It seems to me that because the thief did not die under the New Covenant but under the Old, he would not have (and could not have) received the new covenant baptism because the Holy Spirit had not yet been given to us by Christ.

Fiat

That was not the question posed by the OP; I answered the question as it was asked.

You say:

Fiat:

The issue is whether the thief is under the old covenant or the new covenant.

It does not matter what covenant one dies under, salvation in both covenants always has been by faith alone, in God alone. The story of the thief on the cross ably illustrates that; the thief had no N.T. baptism, perhaps no O.T. circumcision, no resurrection, no permanent indwelling of the H.S., no works, and on, and on.

For eternity, salvation has been an act of God’s grace appropriated through faith alone in God alone. That did not change when the covenants changed.

You say:

Fiat:

The thief certainly died before Christ even gave the command that the apostles were to go out into the world, baptizing all nations.

That is further support that baptism is not necessary for salvation.

You say:

Fiat:

The thief also died before Jesus fulfilled the New Covenant (i.e., rose from the dead).

Exactly—faith alone in God alone.

You say:

Fiat:

It seems to me that because the thief did not die under the New Covenant but under the Old, he would not have (and could not have) received the new covenant baptism because the Holy Spirit had not yet been given to us by Christ.

Right—faith alone in God alone: Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness—no circumcision, no baptism, no resurrection, no Pentecostal/permanent indwelling of the H.S., no works.

Abraham and the thief had none of those, but what they did have was faith alone in God alone.

Sandusky

 

[Fiat]

sandusky:

You say:It does not matter what covenant one dies under, salvation in both covenants always has been by faith alone, in God alone. The story of the thief on the cross ably illustrates that; the theif had no N.T. baptism, perhaps no O.T. circumcision, no resurrection, no permanent indwelling of the H.S., no works, and on, and on.

For eternity, salvation has been an act of God’s grace appropriated through faith alone in God alone. That did not change when the covenants changed.

Sandusky

Sandusky:
If it was faith alone that saved Abraham and every other person dying under the Old Covenant, then what exactly was the purpose of Christ coming?

You say there is no difference between the Old and New Covenants, but I suspect most Christian and Jewish Theologians would disagree with you.

You also state that the thief was never baptized, but you really do not know this, do you? How do you know the thief was not a repentant sinner who had fallen after he had already received a baptism of John or another Jewish ritual baptism?

To use the episode of the thief as a tool to undermine orthodox Christian teaching is a bit sketchy.

Moreover, I do not disagree with you that faith alone is all that is required. Our disagreements are over what “faith” is exactly. For me, faith involves mentally assenting to and doing all that Christ commanded, which would include baptism: being born again of water and spirit!

If you respond to any of my comments, I especially hope you will explain why Christ’s coming was necessary if Abraham could be saved prior to His glorious resurrection?!

Fiat

 

[sandusky]

Fiat:

If it was faith alone that saved Abraham and every other person dying under the Old Covenant, then what exactly was the purpose of Christ coming?

He came to finish the work of Abraham’s salvation:

Galatians 4:4-5
4 But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law,
5 so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.

And He came in fulfillment of the gospel preached to Abraham:

Galatians 3:8
8 The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “All the nations will be blessed in you.”

Fiat:

You say there is no difference between the Old and New Covenants, but I suspect most Christian and Jewish Theologians would disagree with you.

No, Fiat, you say that I said that.

What I said:

It does not matter what covenant one dies under, salvation in both covenants always has been by faith alone, in God alone.

God’s word agrees.

Fiat:

You also state that the thief was never baptized, but you really do not know this, do you? How do you know the thief was not a repentant sinner who had fallen after he had already received a baptism of John or another Jewish ritual baptism?

No, Fiat, you say that I said that.

What I said:

The story of the thief on the cross ably illustrates that; the thief had no N.T. baptism

I think you said that as well. I know for certain that he did not have a post-resurrection baptism, and that, according to you, is regenerative, and all of your argument against the simplicity of the story only serves to create a fog around the central fact: The thief believed, and was saved.

Fiat:

Moreover, I do not disagree with you that faith alone is all that is required. Our disagreements are over what “faith” is exactly. For me, faith involves mentally assenting to and doing all that Christ commanded, which would include baptism: being born again of water and spirit!

Abraham, and the thief obeyed God, but neither had the post-resurrection baptism, nor the post-resurrection indwelling of the Spirit, but I am certain both of them are with their Lord.

Sandusky

 

[Fiat]

Sandusky:

1. I’m not sure I know what you mean by “Abraham’s salvation.” Was Abraham saved at the moment of his faith? At the end of your post, you indicate “obedience.” Is this something separate from faith?
2. Do you understand the phrase “born again,” to be merely a mental act? an opinion one convinces oneself us? Is the Spirit a necessary part of this?
3. My position is that the thief had no N.T. baptism precisely because the New Covenant was not in place. Therefore, I am not sure how applicable the circumstances are of one who is under a completely different covenant from the one you and I are under.
4. After Our Lord spit in mud, wiped it on the blind man’s eye, and then told the blind man to wash himself in the pool to regain his sight, would have stopped the man on the way to the pool and said, “Hey wait a minute. You don’t need to wash yourself. Just believe, and you’ll be okay.”

Fiat

 

[LilyM]

Fiat:

Sandusky:

1. I’m not sure I know what you mean by “Abraham’s salvation.” Was Abraham saved at the moment of his faith? At the end of your post, you indicate “obedience.” Is this something separate from faith?
2. Do you understand the phrase “born again,” to be merely a mental act? an opinion one convinces oneself us? Is the Spirit a necessary part of this?
3. My position is that the thief had no N.T. baptism precisely because the New Covenant was not in place. Therefore, I am not sure how applicable the circumstances are of one who is under a completely different covenant from the one you and I are under.
4. After Our Lord spit in mud, wiped it on the blind man’s eye, and then told the blind man to wash himself in the pool to regain his sight, would have stopped the man on the way to the pool and said, “Hey wait a minute. You don’t need to wash yourself. Just believe, and you’ll be okay.”

Fiat

My points exactly. What applied prior to Christ’s life and death (even while he was on the Cross) was a different ballgame. Even the apostles knew that, which is why after Pentecost they baptised, and why John, writing his Gospel in hindsight, sees the significance of the ‘unless you are born again in water’ comment.