The thief on the cross beside Jesus

[sandusky]

Fiat:

I’m not sure I know what you mean by “Abraham’s salvation.” Was Abraham saved at the moment of his faith?

Yes.

Fiat:

At the end of your post, you indicate “obedience.” Is this something separate from faith?

No.

Fiat:

Do you understand the phrase “born again,” to be merely a mental act?

No.

Fiat:

an opinion one convinces oneself us?

No.

Fiat:

Is the Spirit a necessary part of this?

Yes.

Fiat:

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.

OK.

Fiat:

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.”

OK.

 

[Fiat]

Sandusky:

This question is a bit off topic, but how do you put the individual sentences from a post in quote blocks so that it says “originally posted by…” I can only do that for an entire post and not for individual parts of the post.

Fiat

 

[LilyM]

Fiat:

Sandusky:

This question is a bit off topic, but how do you put the individual sentences from a post in quote blocks so that it says “originally posted by…” I can only do that for an entire post and not for individual parts of the post.

Fiat

As you’re writing the message initially, if you look you’ll see the square brackets - ] with QUOTE or /QUOTE in them. If I type the equals sign and a name next to QUOTE (not /QUOTE) it’ll say ‘originally posted by …’

eg, if I type QUOTE=Fiat (all inside the square brackets) it’ll say ‘originally posted by Fiat’ - no spaces in between the words or characters though.

Hope that’s clear enough, took me a while to figure it out.

 

[sandusky]

Fiat:

Sandusky:

This question is a bit off topic, but how do you put the individual sentences from a post in quote blocks so that it says “originally posted by…” I can only do that for an entire post and not for individual parts of the post.

Fiat

I have used parens so that you can see the coding on the screen.

When you do the actual coding use brackets: ], instead of parens.

Here is the coding:

(quote=Fiat)How do you get individual quotes?(/quote)

Using brackets in the reply section this is what you get:

Fiat:

How do you get individual quotes?

When you finish reading all of this, hit the “quote” button at the bottom of this post and look at the coding inside that comes up on the screen, and you will see what I am talking about.

What you see on that screen is treated as a whole. If you want to break it up on the screen, go to the end point of your choosing, and code it with: (/quote), [but use brackets, not parens].

To begin the next quote, go to the point at which you want to begin, and enter the coding: (quote=name), and then go to where you want to stop, and enter (/quote), and so on until you are done.

So: (quote=name) begins the section.

(/quote) ends the section.

Remember the parens are for illustration, use brackets ] for your coding.

You can do that here, on the forum in the reply screen, or you can do that on Microsoft Word, offline if you want time to think about what you writing.

If you do it on Word, you can code for

bold: (b) (/b)
Ital: (i) (/i)
underline: you do this one

and so on. If you don’t code for bold, ital, etc., in word, then you will have to do it in the reply screen by the usual define/bold method or you can code in the reply as well.

When you are ready to post, go online and hit the post reply button at the last post. That will give you a completely blank reply screen into which you copy and paste what you have composed on Word.

PM me if you have anymore questions, or if you have any problems.

Sandusky

 

[neweyes]

Did you notice that the thief didn’t have to endure Pergatory? He got to be with Jesus THAT DAY. Wow.

 

[LilyM]

neweyes:

Did you notice that the thief didn’t have to endure Pergatory? He got to be with Jesus THAT DAY. Wow.

Apparently the quote can be read in two ways though. The ‘this day’ could refer either to the time Jesus is speaking - ‘I say to you today - you will be with me’ - or to the time the thief is going to paradise ‘I say to you - today you will be with me’.

I like the second version much better myself of course Funny how a little change of emphasis can make so much difference to our understanding though.

 

[Fiat]

neweyes:

Did you notice that the thief didn’t have to endure Pergatory? He got to be with Jesus THAT DAY. Wow.

But don’t we know that Jesus was not in Paradise that day, but instead went to the souls in prison? Doesn’t Jesus not ascend to Paradise until 43 days after his death?

Fiat

 

[LilyM]

Fiat:

But don’t we know that Jesus was not in Paradise that day, but instead went to the souls in prison? Doesn’t Jesus not ascend to Paradise until 43 days after his death?

Fiat

Well he tells Mary on Easter morning that he hasn’t yet ascended to his father and that’s why she’s not to touch him. However, when he appears to the apostles that evening Thomas touches him. Could mean that he went to heaven and released the souls in between? Why would he go to the souls in prison anyway if not to lead them to heaven?

 

[Fiat]

LilyM:

Well he tells Mary on Easter morning that he hasn’t yet ascended to his father and that’s why she’s not to touch him. However, when he appears to the apostles that evening Thomas touches him. Could mean that he went to heaven and released the souls in between? Why would he go to the souls in prison anyway if not to lead them to heaven?

I suspect Jesus went to the souls in prison, but He still did not ascend to the Father until 40 days after that. He allows St. Thomas to touch Him because St. Thomas was a priest of the New Testament, and as such, was permitted to touch the sacrficial lamb.

Fiat

 

[Writer]

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

Would you also say that you don’t believe in “deathbed conversions”, or are you simply saying that the usual conversion experience will also have the expectation of a changed life, good works, etc. as an outward sign of the changes within the person?

 

[princz23]

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

First of all, let me thank you for your reply. I appreciate you answering my post.

In saying the thief had faith we would agree. He even expressed this faith to Christ the King himself and Christ assured the thief of his salvation due to this declaration. The thief was washed clean by this act, same as a baptism of desire would be if a dying person did not have an opportunity for baptism by water.

As Catholics we have no problem with this. We as Catholics believe if a person is truly repentant of their sin, a perfect contrition, they will be forgiven…even outside of the sacraments. However, if this person has the means to do so and does not die before he has the opportunity, we believe the sinner is required to use the sacraments set up in the NT by Christ himself, including the sacrament of reconciliation or confession (John 20:21-23) for a baptised, confirmed Catholic. If the person is not baptised, we believe the person is required to follow Jesus instructions in the NT to be baptised (John 3:5, Acts 2:38, Titus 3:5, Acts 22:16, Romans 6:4, 1 Peter 3:21) in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We believe in only one baptism for sins, so as long as this formula is used, it is a valid baptism.

It seems to me that by using this scripture to prove faith alone for salvation, many other scriptures, books even in the NT must be ignored or seen as merely “suggestions”.

 

[Studens]

Fiat:

Sandusky:

This question is a bit off topic, but how do you put the individual sentences from a post in quote blocks so that it says “originally posted by…” I can only do that for an entire post and not for individual parts of the post.

Fiat

Fiat, and any others who are interested, you can find more about these tags and how to use them here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/misc.php?do=bbcode